The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Daniel A. Reynolds, should take corrective action and pay investigative costs for allegedly controlling, eradicating, removing, or otherwise altering aquatic vegetation on eighty-seven feet of shoreline adjacent to his property on Lake June-in-Winter (Lake June) in Highlands County, Florida, without an aquatic plant management permit.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent is the riparian owner of the property located at 260 Lake June Road, Lake Placid, Highlands County (County), Florida. He has owned the property since 2001 and resides there with his wife and two young children. The parcel is identified as Parcel ID Number C-25-36-29-A00-0171-0000. The southern boundary of his property, which extends around eighty-seven feet, abuts Lake June. Respondent has constructed a partially covered dock extending into the waters of Lake June, on which jet skis, a canoe, and other recreational equipment are stored. The Department is the administrative agency charged with protecting the State's water resources and administering and enforcing the provisions of Part I, Chapter 369, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated under Title 62 of the Florida Administrative Code. The parties have stipulated that Lake June is not wholly-owned by one person; that it was not artificially created to be used exclusively for agricultural purposes; that it is not an electrical power plant cooling pond, reservoir, or canal; and that it has a surface area greater than ten acres. As such, the parties agree that Lake June constitutes "waters" or "waters of the state" within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-20.0015(23), and is not exempt from the Department's aquatic plant management permitting program under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-20.0035. Unless expressly exempted, a riparian owner who wishes to control, eradicate, remove, or otherwise alter any aquatic plants in waters of the state must obtain an aquatic plant management permit from the Department. See § 369.20(7), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 62C-20.002(1). An aquatic plant is defined as "any plant, including a floating plant, emersed, submersed, or ditchbank species, growing in, or closely associated with, an aquatic environment, and includes any part or seed of such plant." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62C-20.0015(1). These plants are found not only in the water, but also along the shoreline when the water recedes below the high water mark. They provide important habitat for fish, insects, birds, frogs, and other animals. Torpedo Grass and Maidencane are two common species of aquatic plants or weeds. Applications for a permit are filed with one of the Department's regional offices. After a site inspection is made, a permit is issued as a matter of right without charge or the need for a hearing, and it is effective for a period of three years. A Department witness indicated that there are approximately 1,300 active permits at the present time, including an undisclosed number of permits for property owners on Lake June.3 It is undisputed that Respondent has never obtained a permit. A statutory exemption provides that "a riparian owner may physically or mechanically remove herbaceous aquatic plants . . . within an area delimited by up to 50 percent of the property owner's frontage or 50 feet, whichever is less, and by a sufficient length waterward from, and perpendicular to, the riparian owner's shoreline to create a corridor to allow access for a boat or swimmer to reach open water." § 369.20(8), Fla. Stat. The exemption was established so that riparian owners could create a vegetation-free access corridor to the waterbody adjacent to their upland property. The statute makes clear that "physical or mechanical removal does not include the use of any chemicals . . . ." Id. If chemicals are used, the exemption does not apply. Under the foregoing exemption, Respondent could remove up to 43.5 feet of aquatic vegetation in front of his property on Lake June, or one-half of his eighty-seven foot shoreline. By way of background, since purchasing his property in 2001, Respondent has had a long and acrimonious relationship with his two next door neighbors, Mr. Slevins (to the west) and Mr. Krips (to the east).4 Neither neighbor uses Lake June for recreational purposes. After purchasing the property, Respondent says that Mr. Slevin began to verbally harass and threaten his family, particularly his wife. When Respondent observed the two neighbors repeatedly trespassing on his property, including the placing of an irrigation system and a garden over the boundary lines, Respondent built a fence around his lot, which engendered a circuit court action by the neighbors over the correct boundary line of the adjoining properties. Respondent says the action was resolved in his favor. According to Respondent, Mr. Slevins and Mr. Krips have filed "probably 100 to 200 different complaints on everything from barking dogs, to weeding the yard to calling DEP." Respondent also indicated that Mr. Slevins is a personal friend of the Highlands County Lakes Manager, Mr. Ford. As his title implies, Mr. Ford has the responsibility of inspecting the lakes in the County. If he believes that aquatic vegetation has been unlawfully removed or altered, he notifies the Department's South Central Field Office (Field Office) in Bartow since the County has no enforcement authority. Mr. Reynolds says that a personal and social relationship exists between Mr. Slevins and Mr. Ford, and through that relationship, Mr. Slevins encouraged Mr. Ford to file at least two complaints with the Field Office alleging that Respondent removed aquatic vegetation in Lake June without a permit. In 2002, the Department received a complaint about "aquatic plant management activity" on Respondent's property. There is no indication in the record of who filed the complaint, although Respondent suspects it was generated by Mr. Slevins. In any event, after an inspection of the property was made by the then Regional Biologist, and improper removal of vegetation noted, Respondent was sent a "standard warning letter" that asked him "to let it regrow" naturally. According to the Department's Chief of the Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, Mr. William Caton, Respondent "did not" follow this advice. In 2004, another complaint was filed, this time by the Highlands County Lakes Manager. After an inspection was made, another letter was sent to Respondent asking him to "let it regrow," to implement a revegetation plan, and to contact the Department's Regional Biologist. After receiving the letter, Respondent's wife telephoned Mr. Caton, whose office is in Tallahassee, and advised him that the complaint was the result of "a neighbor feud." Among other things, Mr. Caton advised her that the Department would not "get in the middle" of a neighbor squabble. At hearing, he disputed Mrs. Reynolds' claim that he told her to disregard the warning letter. He added that Respondent did not "follow through with" the corrective actions. As a result of another complaint being filed by the Highlands County Lakes Manager in 2006, a field inspection was conducted on July 12, 2006, by a Department Regional Biologist, Erica C. Van Horn. When she arrived, she noticed that the property was fenced and locked with a "Beware of Dog" sign. Ms. Van Horn then went to the home of Mr. Slevins, who lives next door, and was granted permission to access his property to get to the shoreline. The first thing Ms. Van Horn noticed was that the "lake abutting 260 Lake June Road was completely devoid of vegetation." She further noted that "on either side of that property [there was] lush green Torpedo Grass." Ms. Van Horn found it "very unusual" for the vegetation to stop right at the riparian line. Although she observed that there was "a small percentage of Maidencane" on the site, approximately ninety to ninety-five percent of the frontage "was free of aquatic vegetation." Finally, she noted that the dead Torpedo Grass on the east and west sides of the property was in an "[arc] shape pattern," which is very typical when someone uses a herbicide sprayer. During the course of her inspection, Ms. Van Horn took four photographs to memorialize her observations. The pictures were taken from the east and west sides of Respondent's property while standing on the Slevins and Krips' properties and have been received in evidence as Department's Exhibits 1-4. They reflect a sandy white beach with virtually no vegetation on Respondent's shoreline or in the lake, brown or dead vegetation around the property lines on each side, and thick green vegetation beginning on both the Slevins and Krips' properties. The dead grass to the east had been chopped into small pieces. During her inspection, Ms. Van Horn did not take any samples or perform field testing to determine if herbicides had been actually used since such testing is not a part of the Department's inspection protocol. This is because herbicides have a "very short half life," and they would have broken down by the time the vegetation turns brown leaving no trace of the chemicals in the water. Ms. Van Horn left her business card at the gate when she departed and assumed that Respondent would contact her. On a later undisclosed date, Respondent telephoned Ms. Van Horn, who advised him that he was out of compliance with regulations and explained a number of ways in which he could "come into compliance with these rules," such as revegetation. She says he was not interested. After her inspection was completed, Ms. Van Horn filed a report and sent the photographs to Mr. Caton for his review. Mr. Caton has twenty-seven years of experience in this area and has reviewed thousands of sites during his tenure with the Department. Based on the coloration of the vegetation right next to the green healthy vegetation on the adjoining properties, Mr. Caton concluded that the vegetation on Respondent's property had "classic herbicide impact symptoms." He further concluded that the vegetation had been chemically sprayed up to the boundary lines on each side of Respondent's property before it was cut with a device such as a weedeater. Based on the history of the property involving two earlier complaints, Respondent's failure to take corrective action, and the results of the most recent inspection, Mr. Caton recommended that an enforcement action be initiated. On August 11, 2006, Ms. Van Horn sent Respondent a letter advising him that a violation of Department rules may have occurred based upon the findings of her inspection. The letter described the unlawful activities as being "removal of aquatic vegetation from the span of the total adjacent shore line and significant over spray on to aquatic vegetation of neighboring properties on either side of [his] property." Respondent was advised to contact Ms. Van Horn "to discuss this matter." On May 15, 2007, the Department filed its Notice alleging that Respondent had "chemically controlled" the aquatic vegetation on eighty-seven feet of his shoreline in violation of Section 369.20(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-20.002(1). The Notice sought the imposition of an administrative penalty in the amount of $3,000.00, recovery of reasonable investigative costs and expenses, and prescribed certain corrective action. On April 28, 2008, the Department filed an Amended Notice alleging that, rather than chemically removing the vegetation, Respondent had controlled, eradicated, removed, or otherwise altered the aquatic vegetation on his shoreline. The Amended Notice deleted the provision requesting the imposition of an administrative penalty, expressly sought the recovery of investigative costs and expenses of not less than $179.00, and modified the corrective action. After her initial inspection, Ms. Van Horn rode by the property in a Department boat on several occasions while conducting other inspections on Lake June and observed that the property "was still mostly devoid of vegetation." At the direction of a supervisor, on June 15, 2007, she returned to Respondent's property for the purpose of assessing whether any changes had occurred since her inspection eleven months earlier. This inspection was performed lakeside from a Department boat without actually going on the property, although she spoke with Respondent's wife who was standing on the dock. Ms. Van Horn observed that the area was still "devoid of vegetation but there was some Torpedo Grass growing back on the [eastern] side." She estimated that "much more" than fifty percent of the shoreline was free of vegetation. Photographs depicting the area on that date have been received in evidence as Department's Exhibits 5-7. Both Respondent and his wife have denied that they use any chemicals on their property, especially since their children regularly swim in the lake in front of their home. Respondent attributes the loss of vegetation mainly to constant use of the back yard, dock area, and shoreline for water-related activities, such as swimming, using jet skis, fishing, and launching and paddling a canoe. In addition, the Reynolds frequently host parties for their children and their friends, who are constantly tramping down the vegetation on the shoreline and in the water. He further pointed out that beginning with the house just beyond Mr. Krip's home, the next five houses have "no vegetation" because there are some areas on the lake that "naturally do not have any vegetation across them." Finally, he noted that Lake Juno suffered the impacts of three hurricanes in 2004, which caused a devastating effect on its vegetation. Respondent presented the testimony of Brian Proctor, a former Department aquatic preserve manager, who now performs environmental restoration as a consultant. Mr. Proctor visited the site in June 2007 and observed "full and thick" Torpedo Grass "growing in the east and west of the property lines." Based on that inspection, Mr. Proctor said he was "comfortable stating that at the time [he] did the site visit in June of '07 there was nothing that appeared to be chemical treatment on Mr. Reynold's property." He agreed, however, that the "shoreline vegetation was poor," and he acknowledged that it was unusual that Lake Juno was lush with aquatic vegetation in front of the neighboring properties to the east and west but stopped at Respondent's riparian lines. When shown the June 2006 photographs taken by Ms. Van Horn, he acknowledged that it "appeared" the property had been chemically treated. He was able to make this determination even though a soil test had not been performed. Photographs introduced into evidence as Respondent's Exhibits 1-4 reflect that on June 27, 2007, there was thick green vegetation on both sides of his property, although one photograph (Respondent's Exhibit 1) shows only limited vegetation along the shoreline and in the lake in the middle part of the property. The photographs are corroborated by a DVD recorded by Respondent on the day that Ms. Van Horn returned for a follow-up inspection. While these photographs and DVD may impact the amount of corrective action now required to restore the property to its original state, they do not contradict the findings made by Ms. Van Horn during her inspection on July 12, 2006. Finally, photographs taken in 2003 to depict what appears to be chemical spraying of vegetation and the construction of a bulkhead without a permit by Mr. Slevins have no probative value in proving or disproving the allegations at issue here. The greater weight of evidence supports a finding that it is very unlikely that heavy usage of the shoreline and adjacent waters in the lake by Respondent's family and their guests alone would cause ninety-five percent of the shoreline and lake waters to be devoid of vegetation when the inspection was made in July 2006. Assuming arguendo that this is true, Respondent was still required to get a permit since the amount of vegetation altered or removed through these activities exceeded more than fifty percent of the vegetation on the shoreline. More than likely, the vegetation was removed by a combination of factors, including recreational usage, mechanical or physical means, and the application of chemical herbicides on each riparian boundary line, as alleged in the Amended Notice. The fact that the Department did not perform any testing of the water or soil for chemicals does not invalidate its findings. Finally, the acrimonious relationship that exists between Respondent and his neighbors has no bearing on the legitimacy of the charges. Therefore, the allegations in the Amended Notice have been sustained. The parties have stipulated that if the charges are sustained, Respondent is entitled to recover reasonable costs and expenses associated with this investigation in the amount of $179.00. As corrective action, the Amended Notice requires that Respondent obtain a permit to remove Torpedo Grass from his property and to replant "126 well-rooted, nursery grown Pontederia cordata ("pickerelweed") at the locations depicted on the map" attached to the Amended Notice. Because the evidence suggests that some of the area in which vegetation was removed in 2006 had regrown by July 2007, the proposed corrective action may be subject to modification, depending on the current state of the property.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the application of Respondents Falkner to transfer and modify a Water Use Permit should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) is responsible for regulation and protection of water resources in the geographic area involved in this proceeding. Since 1994, John Falkner has owned the property in Hillsborough County which is the subject of this proceeding. The Falkner property is farmed by Christopher Falkner, the owner's brother. Prior to purchasing the land, the Falkners farmed the property, also known as the Rogers farm, through a lease arrangement with the previous owner. Rose Ann DeVito owns property to the south of the Falkner property. In the time since Ms. DeVito purchased the property, the elevation of Sumner Road has been raised and culverts were replaced. A fish farm was constructed in close proximity to her property. The result of this and other development has been to direct all the water flow from the surrounding area into the stream adjacent to the DeVito property. Drainage patterns in the area of Ms. DeVito's property have been altered since she first occupied the property. A ditch along Sumner Road which used to handle runoff from her property has been blocked by a neighbor's driveway. Maintenance on the ditch, allegedly a county responsibility, is described as poor. The ditch at the rear of Ms. DeVito's property handled water flow to Bullfrog Creek until the water flow became blocked, and the water diverted onto her property. The effect is that Ms. DeVito's property often contains a large amount of water. A substantial amount of sand is visible on her property, allegedly deposited by water flow. According to Ms. DeVito, both the county and the District have blamed the Falkner farm for the water-deposited sand. Charles and Diana Booth own property adjacent and to the south of the Falkner property. From 1992 to 1994, the Booths suffered from water running off the Falkner/Rogers farm and flooding the Booth property. A flood of the Booth property in the Fall of 1994 was not caused by irrigation but was related to a ten inch rainfall event at the Falkner farm. A ten inch rainfall exceeds a 25 year storm event and would likely result in widespread flooding. The Booths' pasture, top soil and driveway were eroded by the flooding. During the two years of flooding, Mr. Booth complained on several occasions about the flooding to the Falkners' foreman, "Cleo." The complaints were not relayed to Mr. Falkner. In October 1994, Mr. Booth reported the problem to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Soon after the complaint was made, a representative of the District inspected the property and determined that a ditch needed maintenance. Shortly thereafter, the ditch was cleaned and a berm was installed to redirect runoff away from the Booth property. There has been no further flooding of the Booth property. In October 1995, Mr. Booth became concerned that a ditch was filling with sand and would not continue to handle the runoff. After voicing his concern, a water diverter was installed in the ditch and appears to have remedied the situation. At the time the Falkners began to lease the Rogers property, an existing water use permit, numbered 206938.01, had been issued and was valid for the farm. The Falkners have applied to transfer the existing water use permit from the previous property owner. The Falkners also seek to modify the permit, increasing the total quantities which can be pumped by transferring previously approved quantities from another permit the Falkners currently hold. All of the relevant wells are within the District's Most Impacted Area (MIA) of the Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area. The District allows a permit holder within the MIA to increase withdrawals from a well by transferring the quantities from another permitted well within the MIA. The other Falkner farm (the "301 farm") from which the quantities would be transferred is located approximately one-half mile to the south of the Rogers farm and is within the MIA. The District reviewed the application and, on September 29, 1995, issued its Proposed Agency Action to Issue Water Use Permit No. 206938.03. The proposed permit includes special conditions requiring monthly pumping reports, water quality reports, adherence to District irrigation allotments (irrigation levels established by the AGMOD computer model) and crop reporting. In reviewing the application the District utilized the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code, and the Basis of Review, incorporated into the code by reference. In order to obtain a Water Use Permit, an applicant must demonstrate that the water use is reasonable and beneficial, is in the public interest, and will not interfere with any existing legal use of water. Additionally, the applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the water use: will not cause quantity or quality changes which adversely impact the water resources, including both surface and ground waters; will not adversely impact offsite land uses existing at the time of the application; will not cause water to go to waste; and will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that the water use is reasonable, beneficial and is in the public interest. The Falkners irrigate farmland to produce agricultural products. The production of food is in the public interest. The proposed use is reasonable and beneficial. Further, uncontradicted evidence and opinions of expert witnesses establish that the proposed use will not interfere with any existing legal use of water. The applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the water use will not cause quantity or quality changes which adversely impact the water resources, including both surface and ground waters. The evidence establishes that pumping from the Falkner wells will not adversely affect the quality of water within the aquifers from which the water is drawn. Mr. Booth asserted that he is having water quality problems, specifically with rust in his well. The Booth well is approximately 25 years old. There is no evidence that the rust is related to the Falkner pumping. The DeVito and Booth wells draw from the Intermediate aquifer. Review of the potentiometric surface map of the intermediate aquifer indicates that there is a water level variation of 17 feet between the rainy and dry seasons. The result of the variance can be "dry" wells. There are two wells on the Falkner/Rogers property relevant to this proceeding. The first (District ID number 1) is 770 feet deep, is cased to a depth of 160 feet, and opens to the Floridan aquifer. The second (District ID number 2) is 1100 feet deep, is cased to a depth of 140 feet, and opens to the Intermediate and the Floridan aquifers. A cased well does not withdraw water from the formations through which the casing is placed. For example, a well cased to a depth of 160 feet draws no water from the top of the casing (at approximately ground level) to the bottom of the casing at 160 feet. The Intermediate aquifer releases water at a much slower rate than the Floridan aquifer. Based on the type and location of the Falkner wells, the vast majority of the water pumped by the Falkners comes from the Floridan aquifer. Impacts on existing wells are calculated through computer modeling. The "MOD" flow model demonstrates impacts that will occur after 90 days of pumping at peak month levels with no recharge to the aquifer. The MOD flow model results in a conservative "worst case" projection. The MOD flow model calculation projects the drawdown at Falkner well number 1 to be approximately .9 feet. The MOD flow model calculation projects the drawdown at Falkner well number 2 to be approximately 1.4 feet. The MOD flow model calculation projects the drawdown at the Booth well to be approximately one-half foot. The impact on the DeVito well will not exceed that projected at the Booth well. District permitting criteria allow for projected MOD flow model drawdown impacts of less than five feet at existing wells. The impact possible after approval of this application falls well within the District's guidelines. The impact of pumping if the application at issue in this proceeding is approved will result in a maximum variation of one-half foot at the Booth well. The evidence fails to establish that any problems related to water quantity encountered by the Booths are related to agricultural pumping at the Falkner farms. The evidence also establishes that, based on the existing retention and drainage system, the proposed use will not adversely impact surrounding surface water bodies. A system of swales and ditches is utilized to retain the water on the farm property. The evidence fails to establish that runoff from the Falkner/Rogers farm will adversely impact surrounding surface waters if this application is approved. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the water use will not adversely impact offsite land uses existing at the time of the application. The evidence establishes that the runoff from the Falkner farm does not discharge directly to the stream at the rear of the DeVito property. Other agricultural property discharges into the stream adjacent to the DeVito property. There is a steady waterflow through the stream at all times, whether or not the Falkner pumps are operating. Ms. DeVito's property consists of Myakka soil, which has little capacity to absorb rainfall and generates large amounts of runoff. The altered drainage patterns in the area have resulted in substantial water on her property. The evidence in insufficient to establish that the Falkner farm pumping has resulted in flooding on Ms. DeVito's property. The evidence fails to establish that approval of the application at issue in this proceeding will cause adverse impact to the DeVito property or will result in water quality or quantity problems. The Booths are concerned that the existing drainage system will not be maintained and that increased pumping will result in their land being flooded again. The evidence fails to establish a substantial likelihood that the Falkner farm drainage system will not be maintained. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the water use will not cause water to go to waste. The Falkners use a semi-enclosed seep irrigation system at the Rogers farm. Irrigation is only used when necessary. Mushroom compost, humates, and plastic mulch retain moisture in the soil. A special condition of the permit requires the Falkners investigate the feasibility of tail water recovery and reuse. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the use will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District. The permit application results in no increased withdrawal of water than is allowed under the existing permits for the Rogers and the "301" farms.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order granting the Falkner application and issuing permit number 206938.03. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1996 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASES NO. 95-5763 and 95-5764 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioners Booth The Petitioners Booth proposed findings of fact fail to comply with the requirements of Rule 60Q-2.031(3), Florida Administrative Code, which requires citations to the record of hearing. The proposed findings are rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the greater weight of the evidence except where they are consistent with the Findings of Fact set forth herein. Respondents The Respondents' joint proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 15. Rejected, cumulative. 28-29. Rejected, subordinate. 33. Rejected, subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Rose Ann DeVito, pro se 11001 Sumner Road Wimauma, Florida 33598 Diana P. and Charles B. Booth, pro se 10812 Sumner Road Wimauma, Florida 33598 Patricia Petruff, Esquire Dye and Scott, P.A. 1111 Third Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34206 Martin Hernandez, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Peter G. Hubbell, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue Whether the application of Telegraph Cypress Water Management District to modify an existing surface water management system permit should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The South Florida Water Management District (District) is a public corporation in the State of Florida existing pursuant to Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code. The District is a multipurpose water management agency with principal offices in West Palm Beach, Florida. Telegraph Cypress Water Management District (TCWMD) is a water control district organized pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. Agricultural operations have been conducted within the TCWMD for more than 30 years by the landowner, Babcock Florida Company. The TCWMD is the permittee of record. James D. English, Jr., owns, along with other members of his family, an orange grove and pasture in Lee County, Florida. The English family has owned the property for approximately 120 years. On November 10, 1992, James D. English, Jr., and the Panacea Timber Company filed a petition for formal administrative hearing challenging the District's intent to issue SWM Permit Modification No. 08-00004-S. Cypress Creek Partnership is a Florida General Partnership of which James D. English, Jr., is a principal. The partnership engages in agricultural activities in Lee County, Florida. The Alva Cemetery, Inc., is a Florida not-for-profit corporation which owns and manages a cemetery facility in Lee County Florida. The cemetery has been in active use for approximately 120 years. In recent years, Alva Cemetery has experienced occasions of excess water encroaching onto the cemetery property. On November 12, 1992, Alva Cemetery, Inc., filed a petition for administrative hearing challenging the District's intent to issue SWM Permit Modification No. 08-00004-S. James D. English, Jr., Cypress Creek Partnership and Alva Cemetery, Inc., are herein referred to as Petitioners. The TCWMD and the Petitioner English share a common property boundary. The Alva Cemetery is surrounded by the English property. All lands involved in this matter historically drain towards the Caloosahatchee River. The TCWMD includes approximately 89,120 acres of land located in Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida. The land uses within the TCWMD include agricultural, cattle, and timber operations. Generally, the fields have been leased to third party farmers who use the field for several years. When the fields are not actively farmed, they are returned to a fallow state and used as pasture land until fertility is restored at which time they are reactivated for farming. Active farms fields are generally surrounded by a perimeter ditch and dike system. Pumps may be used to water and de-water the fields. When the field is returned to a fallow state, the ditch and dike system are not maintained and become less prominent either by action of weather or by intent. Pumps are not present. All of the TCWMD lies generally north to northwest of the property owned by the Petitioners. Surface waters flow onto the Petitioners' lands from the north. The Telegraph-Cypress system is unique and is the largest of its kind in South Florida Water Management District jurisdiction. The TCWMD system includes storage/detention facilities, control structures, pumping stations and an extensive network of internal canals. There are nine separate water management basins within the TCWMD. The Petitioners asserted that the water management basins identified by the District and the TCWMD are incorrect. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the District's identification and delineation of the nine basins is based on historical hydrologic characteristics of the TCWMD and is a reasonable determination of basin boundaries. The land encompassed by the instant application for permit modification includes three of the nine basins and encompasses approximately 51,400 acres of the TCWMD. Surface water discharge from the relevant farm fields flows via the internal canal network and sheet flow to the three common detention basins: Telegraph Swamp, North Telegraph Swamp ("Telegraph North") and Curry Lake. The Telegraph North basin lies to the north of and discharges into the Telegraph Swamp basin and includes 13,799 acres of which 4,094 acres are farm fields. The drainage into the Curry Lake basin does not impact either the Telegraph North or Telegraph Swamp basins or the Petitioners' properties. The evidence establishes that as to the Telegraph North and Curry Lake drainage basins, the permit modification meets applicable permitting criteria. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. Telegraph Swamp is the largest of the three relevant detention systems. The Telegraph Swamp basin includes a total of 32,707 acres of which 4,381 acres are farm fields. Telegraph Swamp is a 4,390-acre wetland vegetated by cypress trees and sawgrass, with a base of muck soils, humus, topsoil, leaf litter and other organic material. Located at the south end of Telegraph Swamp are surface water management control structures (the Big Island Dike) built in 1975 and permitted in the original 1980 permit. The structures include three broad-crested weirs and one flash-board weir. Telegraph Swamp has been compared to a "sponge" capable of absorbing vast quantities of surface water discharges within the TCWMD before the control structures at the south end of the swamp are over-topped. Water discharged from the control structures flows through canals and creeks to the Caloosahatchee River. During storm events water is discharged over the control structures and into a swamp area south of Big Island Dike. From there, the water flows southerly, into Telegraph Creek, Big Island Canal and Cypress Creek and then into the Caloosahatchee. The Petitioners expressed concern that TCWMD could inappropriately discharge water from the control gates in the Telegraph Swamp weir. Based on evidence admitted at the hearing, the permit modification should include the following special condition: Discharge structures in the Telegraph Swamp basin shall remain fixed so that discharge cannot be made below the control elevations, except that structure gates and weirs may only be removed during emergency conditions upon notification to and consent by the District's Fort Myers Service Center regulatory area manager or designee. The Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District--September 1989, incorporated into Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code, provides the applicable water quantity permitting criteria relevant to this proceeding. The Petitioners assert that the control gates are required to be locked in accordance with Basis of Review section 3.2.4.1.b, which states: Discharge structures shall be fixed so that discharge cannot be made below the control elevation, except that emergency devices may be installed with secure locking devices. Either the District or an acceptable govern- mental agency will keep the keys for any such devices. The Petitioners are correct. The rule requires secure locking devices. Such condition should be added to the permit The keys may remain with the TCWMD as "an acceptable governmental agency." In 1980, the District issued Surface Water Management Permit No. 08- 00004-S for the TCWMD to operate an existing surface water management system for an existing agricultural operation. The 1980 permit specifically authorizes "[o]peration of a water management system serving 89,120 acres of agricultural lands by a vast network of internal drainage and irrigation canals, a major dike, a major canal and 4 water control structures discharging via small tributary creeks and sloughs into the Caloosahatchee River." Although the permit has been subsequently modified, the authorization to operate the system has not been amended. While District enforcement staff have occasionally noted "performance deficiencies" on the TCWMD property, there have been no permit violations by the permittee. Deficiencies which have been called to the TCWMD's attention have been resolved. Special condition number five to the 1980 permit provides that "[d]ischarges of water onto adjacent lands may be continued to the extent that increased problems are not caused by such discharges." The Petitioners assert that the District has failed to acknowledge that water discharged from the Telegraph Cypress system flows into the Cypress Creek canal and has failed to consider the impact on the Cypress Creek receiving body. However in the staff report to the 1980 permit states as follows: The Telegraph Cypress basin has three major drainage outlets. These are Trout Creek on the west, Telegraph Creek in the center and Cypress Creek to the east. There is a fourth outlet in the northeastern corner of the property known as Jack's Branch, however, this outlet is small compared to the three major ones. Much of Telegraph's southeastern area was previously drained by Spanish Creek and County Line Canal. This historical drainage pattern was blocked when a company which is presently known as Golden Grove constructed a dike across their northern boundary. This dike causes increased flow in a westerly direction around the west end of the dike, thence southerly towards Cypress Creek. This increased flow has caused excess water problems to property owners downstream. In addition, the dike has blocked virtually all flow to Spanish Creek. The evidence fails to establish that, as asserted by the Petitioners, the District has failed to acknowledge the discharge of water to Cypress Creek or to consider the condition of the Cypress Creek receiving body. In the instant case, the condition of the Cypress Creek receiving body was not re- addressed because the permit modification being sought will cause no additional adverse impacts on existing conditions. Although not individually numbered and identified in the original 1980 permit, the evidence establishes that in 1980, all of the farm fields which are subject to this permit modification application were in existence. The applicant seeks no new water control structures. Other than that required to reactivate fallow farm fields, there is no new construction proposed in the instant application. The Petitioners assert that the instant permit modification application will result in construction of new farm fields. The evidence is contrary to the assertion. Proposed permit special condition No. 10 states that the permit does not include the construction of any new farm fields. The farm fields covered in the staff report would be permitted for reactivation from a fallow state without further permitting activity in the future, and without individual retention for each farm field. The modifications to the original 1980 permit have increased the total farm land area. There is no evidence that, except as specifically permitted and approved by the District, there has been alteration of historical discharge rates or routes. There has been considerable confusion regarding the permitting status of the operations as farm fields have been reactivated. Such reactivation entails grading and leveling fields, reconstruction of ditches and dikes and installation of pumping equipment. In order to provide for standardization in farm field reactivation, and to better monitor such activities, the District requested that the TCWMD seek to modify the existing permit. On February 8, 1991, the TCWMD submitted an application to modify the existing permit for the purpose of reactivating the existing farm fields located within the Telegraph North, Telegraph Swamp, and Curry Lake drainage basins. The proposed SWM permit modification authorizes the continued use of the previously permitted surface water management system for existing active and fallow farm fields and allows the reactivation of currently fallow farm fields without further permit modification by the District. Proposed SWM permit special condition No. 16 states that the District requires notification in letter form 30 days prior to all farm field reactivation activities. The proposed modification of the permit will provide the District with an enhanced ability to inspect the reactivated farm fields. Inherent in such reactivation is ditching and diking of the fields. Such operations have been authorized since the 1980 permit was issued. The work associated with field reactivation will be conducted in accordance with existing design criteria as set forth in the application. Based on evidence admitted at the hearing, the permit modification should include the following special condition: Ditches and dikes associated with the farm fields encompassed by this authorization shall be constructed/maintained in conformance with the "Typical Field Layout And Detail Sheet," revised 10/12/93. The evidence establishes that the operations of the TCWMD as proposed by the permit modification application are within the authorization of the existing permit as previously modified. Otherwise stated, the award of this modification will have no substantial impact on the operation of the permitted surface water management system. The modification will result in no additional discharge of surface water from the control structures. The District has established water quantity criteria intended to insure that adverse impacts do not occur due to excess discharge. (Based upon the Hearing Officer's ruling on a District's Motion in Limine, water quality issues were not addressed at hearing.) The criteria are set forth at Chapter 40E-4.301, Florida Administrative Code, and in the Basis of Review. In relevant part, the District criteria require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the surface water management system provides adequate flood drainage and protection, that the system will not cause adverse water quantity impacts on receiving waters and adjacent lands, and that the system will not cause adverse impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows. Modification of a permit must not result in additional adverse off-site impacts. In this case, reasonable assurances have been provided that the proposed modification will not exacerbate the historical and current drainage conditions. The permit modification application at issue does not propose to alter the rates or routes of water currently authorized for discharge from Telegraph Swamp. Reactivation of the farm fields will not impact receiving bodies in any manner different from that which presently exists under previous permits. In providing reasonable assurances, the TCWMD analyzed the water storage capacity available in the detention basins, performed flood routing projections and calculated peak discharge rates for the permit area. As required by the district, the TCWMD utilized a standard hypothetical 25-year/3- day storm event in order to determine whether sufficient capacity was available to handle the resulting stormwater. The projections provide reasonable assurances that the common detention areas have the capacity to provide adequate flood drainage and protection and are accepted. Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, incorporates by reference a document identified as the "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District--September 1989" Section 3.2.1.2.b requires that: the proposed project modification must meet the allowable discharge rate; and the allowable discharge rate for a previously permitted project is that which was set in the previous permit. The TCWMD prepared and submitted discharge calculations establishing that the post-development discharges will not exceed the discharge rate previously accepted by the District. Since 1984, the District has previously accepted a peak allowable discharge rate of 39 cubic feet per second per square mile (csm). The csm figure is based upon the historical TCWMD discharge rate within the Caloosahatchee River basin. As previously stated, reactivation of the farm fields will not impact the receiving bodies in any manner different from that which presently exists under previous permits. The District asserts that the 39csm discharge rate has been "permitted" since the 1984 modification was approved. The Petitioner asserts that the 39csm discharge rate has never been "permitted" by the District. The evidence establishes that since the 1984 application for permit modification, the discharge rate of 39csm has been utilized by TCWMD and has been accepted by the District, but that the actual permits do not specifically identify the discharge rate as 39csm. In projecting discharge rates, the TCWMD used a time of concentration of one hour. The time of concentration (T.O.C.) is the time in which water would move from the farm fields to the control structure in each sub-watershed. Otherwise stated, a projected T.O.C. of one hour means that the storm water would move from the field to the control structure in one hour. The T.O.C. of one hour is a conservative estimate and likely substantially overestimates the speed at which the water will move. The three basin areas contain a total of more than 80 square miles. Water will travel an average distance of two miles from field to detention basin through ditches, swales and existing low areas. Again conservatively, the TCWMD did not include projected travel time through such conveyances, resulting in a longer T.O.C. and resulting in a higher peak discharge rate than is probable. Although there appeared to be some confusion on the part of the District staff as to the application of the T.O.C. by the TCWMD, the TCWMD engineer who performed the calculation testified at hearing and was qualified as an expert witness in civil engineering, hydrology and surface water management. His testimony and projections are reasonable and are credited. Proposed SWM permit modification special condition No. 11 states that farm field discharge shall be directed to and conveyed via existing ditches, wetlands and/or sheetflow areas per existing site conditions. No new outfall ditches are permitted under this modification. Flood routings were calculated assuming all farm fields would be activated simultaneously and pumping the maximum capacity of 390 gallons per minute per acre (the equivalent of 20-21 inches of surface water pumped from each field daily). It is highly unlikely that all farm fields would be active simultaneously or that stormwater would continue to fall with such velocity to permit continued pumping at maximum capacity for an extended period. Even based on the conservative assumptions utilized by the TCWMD engineers, the projected peak discharge rate at the Telegraph Swamp control structure is 37csm to 38.5csm, within the maximum of 39csm previously accepted by the District. The computer modeling performed by the TCWMD engineer in calculating the peak discharge rate is accepted as reasonable. The TCWMD did not include offsite inflow in its analysis of projected capacity or discharge rates. There is anecdotal evidence that on occasion, water may flow into TCWMD from Jack's Branch or from across roadways to the north and west of the TCWMD; however, given the vast storage capacity of the TCWMD detention areas, there is no evidence that the quantity of offsite inflows is of such significance as to render the TCWMD projections unreasonable. As previously stated, the TCWMD calculations are reasonable and are accepted. The evidence establishes that the peak discharge rate resulting from approval of the instant permit modification will not exceed 39csm. The Petitioners offered their own peak discharge rate calculations, based on a "worst possible case scenario." The assumptions on which the Petitioners' projections are based are unreasonable and are rejected. Based on recommendations received at the hearing, the permit modification should include the following special condition: Pumped discharge from farm fields for which pumps are not currently installed shall be limited to 75 gallons per minute per acre of farmed area. Pumps are currently installed in fields number 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 24 north and south, 28, east half of 34, 64, 67, 68, 69 and 80. The Petitioners assert that the system is currently causing adverse impacts to their properties in the form of flooding. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the system presently does not cause adverse water quantity impacts on receiving waters and adjacent lands, and does not cause adverse impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows. The evidence establishes that award of the application for permit modification will not adversely alter the current operations. It is clear that the Petitioners have been impacted by changes in the historical drainage patterns in the area; however, such changes had substantially occurred by 1980 when the original permit was issued. The greater weight of the credited evidence establishes that such impacts are not the result of the activities authorized in the original 1980 permit and in subsequent modifications, but instead are the result of unrelated actions by third parties not involved in this administrative proceeding. There is no credible evidence that the permit modification sought in the instant proceeding will adversely affect the Petitioners. The 1980 permit addresses existing water quantity problems in the area of the TCWMD project. For example, the construction of the Golden Grove Dike resulted in blockage of historical drainage towards Spanish Creek and the diversion of excess waters into Cypress Creek. During the 1980's the District required that culverts be installed in the Golden Grove Dike which eventually restored some surface water flow through the dike construction and on towards the south, although during some storm events water flow continues around the dike and into Cypress Creek. The Petitioners offered anecdotal evidence as to reduced water flows in some local creeks and increased flows thorough Cypress Creek. The Respondent offered evidence indicating that water flow through Cypress Creek may be less than 30 years ago, due to the digging of a canal between Spanish Creek and Cow Slough and the extension of the Clay Gully Canal's diversion of water into Telegraph Swamp. None of the evidence on this point was persuasive, however it is not relevant. Clearly, the instant permit modification application will not adversely affect the existing situation in the receiving bodies. The Petitioners assert that other receiving waterways have become clogged with vegetation, debris or soil, have accordingly reduced capacities, and are unable to accommodate historical discharge levels. Based on the lack of capacity, the Petitioners suggest that waters move towards the eastern portion of Telegraph Swamp and are discharged, flow towards, into and over the banks of Cypress Creek, and flood their properties. The TCWMD conducted a study of backwater profiles based upon credited field data. The study is found to be reasonable and is credited. Based upon the study, approximately 90 per cent of the water discharged from Telegraph Swamp is conveyed to the Caloosahatchee via Big Island Canal, Telegraph Creek and the swamp area south of the control structure. The remaining 10 per cent of the water enters the Bullhead Strand-Lightered Canal-Cypress Creek watercourse. Water flows from Telegraph Swamp into Cypress Creek via Bullhead Strand and the South Lightered Canal, however, the canal has become so restricted by vegetation that it provides little direct water flow between the strand and the creek and is more properly regarded as an area of enhanced sheet flow. The evidence does not establish that the surface water traveling from Bullhead Strand to Cypress Creek is of significance. Coupled with the existence of the Big Island Canal (which connects Telegraph Swamp to Telegraph Creek) it is unlikely that post-development surface water discharged from the Telegraph Swamp into Cypress Creek exceeds pre-development discharges. The Petitioners claim that two culverts in the Big Island canal restrict the flow of water through the canal and result in increased discharge to the east and to Cypress Creek. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that during period of time when the culverts are unable to accommodate water flow, the water travels into a broad flood plain, around the culverts and returns to the Big Island Canal. The evidence establishes that the proposed modification will not result in additional adverse off-site impacts. The adverse conditions affecting Cypress Creek existed at the time of the 1980 permit and are addressed in the staff report to that permit and to subsequent permit modifications. There is no credible evidence that modification of the permit as sought in this case will result in adverse impacts beyond those which have existed at the time of the award of the original permit. The Petitioners assert that the fields included within the permit modification application lack individual retention areas. The lack of individual detention areas is immaterial in this case where sufficient downstream detention capacity is available through the common detention areas. The Petitioners asserts that the Telegraph Swamp is an "above-ground impoundment" and that as such is fails to comply with requirements related to such water storage systems. The Telegraph Swamp is not a typical "above-ground impoundment" as that term is routinely applied by the District. The regulations addressed by the Petitioners clearly state that they are not intended to be inclusive and are intended to provide guidelines and basic performance criteria for commonly encountered south Florida situations. Telegraph Swamp is not a commonly encountered south Florida situation. There is no evidence that the decision not to apply the "above-ground impoundment" regulations to the Telegraph Swamp is unreasonable. The Petitioner suggest that the TCWMD application for permit modification is deficient and fails to provide information in compliance with the Basis of Review. The Basis of Review is directed towards applications for new construction. The District reasonably does not interpret the all elements of the Basis of Review to apply to existing operations. The original staff report for this permit modification application fails to acknowledge that Cypress Creek is a receiving body. However, as stated previously, the 1980 application and subsequent modifications have clearly addressed the fact that Telegraph Swamp waters discharge to Cypress Creek via intervening waterways. The failure to include the reference in the staff report to this application for modification is irrelevant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order issuing Surface Water Management Permit Modification No. 08-00004-S including the additional permit conditions set forth herein, to the Telegraph Cypress Water Management District. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1994 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 1st day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASES NO. 92-6900 and 92-6901 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioners James D. English and Cypress Creek Partnership The proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioners James D. English and Cypress Creek Partnership consist of unnumbered paragraphs. Pages forty-five through fifty-nine of the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioners James D. English and Cypress Creek Partnership were stricken as set forth in the Order On Motion To Strike issued March 29, 1994. The paragraphs of pages five through forty-four of the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioners James D. English and Cypress Creek Partnership have been consecutively numbered and are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1-2. Rejected, argument, not findings of fact. 7-9. Rejected, argument, not findings of fact. The staff report is not dispositive. 10-12. Rejected. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, although the 39csm figure is not set forth in the permit, as of the 1984 modification, the TCWMD calculations have been based on a peak discharge rate of 39csm and that the District has accepted the calculations previously. The applicable criteria in the instant case require that the allowable discharge rate for a previously permitted project is that which was set in the previous permit. 13. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 15-16. Rejected, argument, not finding of fact, irrelevant, cumulative. 17-18. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 19. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence which establishes that 39csm has been the peak discharge rate accepted by the District since 1984. The flow rate projected by the TCWMD does not exceed the accepted peak discharge rate. 24. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 26-28. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 29-30. Rejected, argument, not finding of fact. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, argument, not finding of fact. Rejected, irrelevant. The greater weight of the credible and persuasive evidence establishes that 39csm has been the District's accepted peak discharge rate and that this modification will not result in peak discharge rates in excess of that which has been previously accepted. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. The assumptions underlying the Petitioners' calculation of theoretical maximum discharge are rejected as unreasonable. Rejected, unnecessary. 36-45. Rejected, irrelevant. The anecdotal evidence fails to establish that offsite inflows are of such quantity as to render the TCWMD projections unreasonable. The proposed findings also consist of recitation of testimony or argument and are not findings of fact. 46-52. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. The evidence fails to establishes that the swamp is an "above-ground impoundment" as that term is routinely applied by the District. The proposed findings also consist of recitation of testimony or argument and are not findings of fact. 53-67. Rejected, irrelevant. An applicant for a permit modification is not required to supply every item on the checklist. An application for a modification to an existing permit often need not contain all the items described. 69. Rejected, cumulative. 70-71. Rejected, argument, not finding of fact. 72-81. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence which establishes that the identification and delineation of the nine basins is based on historical hydrologic characteristics of the TCWMD and is a reasonable determination of basin boundaries. The proposed findings also consist of recitation of testimony or argument and are not findings of fact. 82. Rejected, subordinate. 83-85. Rejected, irrelevant. The confusion on the part of District staff as to what T.O.C. was utilized by the TCWMD engineer is irrelevant. This proceeding is not a review of preliminary staff activity. The applicant must establish entitlement to the permit at the hearing. 86-87. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Rejected. The confusion on the part of District staff as to what T.O.C. was utilized by the TCWMD engineer is irrelevant. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 91-94. Rejected, irrelevant, the discharge projections calculated by the TCWMD as explicated at the hearing are credited. In any event, the evidence establishes that this modification will result in no additional discharge of surface water from the control structures. 95-97. Rejected, irrelevant. The evidence establishes that this modification will result in no additional discharge of surface water from the control structures. Petitioner Alva Cemetery Petitioner Alva Cemetery's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 4-5. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, irrelevant. This is a de novo hearing, not a review of preliminary staff work. The evidence at hearing establishes that the permit modification will not cause additional adverse affect on existing receiving bodies. Rejected, irrelevant. The evidence fails to establish that Hall Creek and Fichter Creek are receiving bodies of such capacity that their omission from staff report is material. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, irrelevant. The evidence fails to establish that offsite inflows are of such quantity as to be relevant. 11. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. The Applicant's analysis is credited. As to T.O.C., even the less conservative T.O.C. projections indicate a peak discharge rate within that previously accepted by the District. 12-13. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, irrelevant. Such return overflows are unnecessary in this situation where the detention areas have the capacity to provide adequate flood drainage and protection. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 18-20. Rejected, cumulative. 21. Rejected, immaterial. There is no evidence that this permit modification application will cause additional adverse impact on receiving bodies. The failure to address nonexistent impacts is immaterial. Rejected, errors in staff report are irrelevant. The evidence admitted at hearing is accepted as correct. First paragraph is rejected, cumulative. Second paragraph is rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, anecdotal testimony is not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected. The greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence establishes that all farm fields affected by this permit modification application were in existence by the 1980 permit. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. The assumptions underlying the Petitioners' calculation of theoretical maximum discharge are rejected as unreasonable. Rejected, irrelevant. The greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence fails to establish that the cemetery flooding is related to actions by the TCWMD. Further, the evidence fails to establish that, even if the flooding was related to the TCWMD, the instant permit modification application will cause additional adverse impacts. Respondent Telegraph Cypress Water Management District Respondent Telegraph Cypress Water Management District's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 18. Rejected, subordinate. 19-20. Rejected, not credited and unnecessary. Rejected as to assertion that the 39csm discharge rate was set in the 1984 permit modification, not supported by the evidence. Review of the document admitted into evidence as the 1984 modification fails to reveal that the figure of 39csm is set forth therein. Rejected, cumulative. Rejected, unnecessary. Respondent South Florida Water Management District Respondent South Florida Water Management District's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 30. Rejected as to assertion that the 39csm discharge rate was set in the 1984 permit modification, not supported by the evidence. Review of the document admitted into evidence as the 1984 modification fails to reveal that the figure of 39csm is set forth therein. Pages 17-19 of the Proposed Recommended Order set forth revisions to the staff report which originally form the basis for the preliminary agency action in this matter. As the hearing is a de novo review of this matter, it is unnecessary for this Recommended Order to address the revision of the staff report, which has limited probative value. COPIES FURNISHED: Tilford C. Creel Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 Melville G. Brinson, Esquire 1415 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Frank A. Pavese, Sr. Esquire 1833 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Scott Barker, Esquire Post Office Box 159 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 John J. Fumero, Esquire Toni M. Leidy, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
The Issue Has the applicant, Grove Isle, Ltd. provided reasonable assurances and affirmatively demonstrated that its proposed marina is clearly in the public interest and will not lower the existing ambient water quality of Biscayne Bay, a designated outstanding Florida water?
Findings Of Fact On March 13, 1978 an application was made to DER for a water quality control permit to construct a wet-slip marina on the west side of Grove Isle, formerly known as Fair Isle and Sailboat Key. The original plan for the marina, which was initially objected to by the Department of Environmental Regulation, was modified to protect a bed of seagrasses extending about 30 feet wide in a band along the west side of the island. While the plans were being modified and consultations with other government permitting agencies were in progress, the application was "deactivated" from September 27, 1978 until March 30, 1979. As a result of its investigation and review, DER on October 23, 1979, issued a letter of intent to grant the permit to Grove Isle, Inc. The permit if granted, would allow the applicant to construct six concrete fixed piers, five "T" shaped, one "L" shaped, with a boat docking capacity of 90 pleasure boats. The piers will extend a maximum of 165 feet offshore from an existing concrete bulkhead. The width of the piers will be 8 feet from the bulkhead to a point 41 feet offshore, and then increased to a width of 10 feet. A sewage pump-out facility is also proposed. Attached to that letter of intent were the following conditions: Adequate control shall be taken during the construction so that turbidity levels outside a 50 foot radius of the work area do not exceed 50 J.C.U's, as per Section 24-11, of the Metropolitan Dade County Code. During construction, turbidity samples shall be collected at a mid-depth twice daily at a point 50 feet up stream and at a point 50 feet down stream from the work area. The contractor shall arrange to have turbidity sample results reported to him within one hour of collection. Turbidity monitoring reports shall be submitted weekly to DER and to the Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Resources Management (MDCERM) If turbidity exceeds 50 J.C.U's beyond a 50 foot radius of the work area, turbidity curtains shall be placed around the work area and MDCERM notified immediately. Turbidity samples shall be collected according to condition two above, no later than one hour after the installation of the turbidity curtain. It turbidity levels do not drop below 50 J.C.U's within one hour of installation of the curtain all construction shall be halted. Construction shall not be resumed until the contractor has received authorization from MDCERM. No live-a-board vessels (permanent or transient) shall be docked at this facility unless direct sewage pump-out connections are provided at each live-a-board slip. A permanent pump-out station shall be installed and maintained for further removal of sewage and waste from the vessels using this facility. Compliance with this requirement will entail the applicant's contacting the Plan Review Section of MDCERM for details concerning connection to an approved disposal system. Boat traffic in the shallow 30 foot wide dense seagrass area which parallels the shoreline shall be restricted by the placement of wood piles on 6 foot centers along the entire shoreline facing the marina. The channel from this marina to deeper water in Biscayne Bay shall be marked to prevent boats from straying into adjacent shallow areas. This will prevent habitat destruction. A chemical monitoring program shall be established to determine the effect of this marina on the water quality of this section of Biscayne Bay. Surface and mid-depth samples shall be collected at three points in the project area and at one background station. Parameters shall include, but not be limited to dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity, temperature, total coliform and fecal coliform and fecal streptococci bacteria, oil and grease, biochemical oxygen demand, and turbidity. Background samples shall be collected prior to construction and quarterly for a minimum of one year after 90 percent occupancy of the marina. In addition to the chemical monitoring program, a benthic community monitoring program is to be established. Samples of the benthic seagrass community within and adjacent to the project area are to be collected prior to construction and quarterly for a minimum of one year after 90 percent occupancy of the marina. Should either monitoring program detect dissimilar changes at its monitoring and control stations, DER and MDCERM shall be notified of the results. The monitoring programs shall be reviewed and approved by DER and MDCERM prior to implementation. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to DER and MDCERM and the United States Corps of Engineers on regular basis. Warning signs shall be posted in the marina area to advise marina users that manatees frequent the area and caution should be taken to avoid collisions with them. With the foregoing conditions imposed, the Department concluded that no significant immediate or long term negative biological impact is anticipated and state water quality standards should not be violated as a result of the proposed construction. Grove Isle, Inc., has agreed to comply with all the conditions established by the DER letter of intent to grant the permit. Grove Isle is a spoil bank in Biscayne Bay located approximately 700 feet east of the Florida mainland. It is linked to the mainland by a two-lane concrete bridge. The island is currently under development for a 510 unit condominium community with associated facilities such as a restaurant, hotel, and the proposed marina. The island is surrounded by a concrete bulkhead constructed many years ago. No changes in the bulkhead line are proposed. Grove Isle, Inc., proposes constructing the marina on concrete piles driven into the Bay bottom from a shallow draft barge. During construction there would be some turbidity caused from the disruption of the Bay sediment. This can however be adequately controlled by the use of turbidity curtains during construction. The construction will not require any dredging or filling. In the immediate marina site the most significant biota are a 30 foot wide bed of seagrasses. There are no other important biota because at one time the area was extensively dredged to create the island. There are no oyster or clam beds nearby. While lobsters may have once frequented the area, they too are no longer present. The water depth in the area ranges from 1 foot near the island bulkhead to 12 feet offshore to the west of the island. This particular seagrass bed consist primarily of turtle grass (thalassia, testudinum) with some Cuban Shoal Weed (Halodule, Wrightii). Protection for these grasses will be provided by a buffer zone between the island and the boat slips. The grassy zone will be bordered by a row of dolphin piles to exclude boat traffic. Because the grass requires sunlight for photosynthesis and therefore life, the six piers will have grated walkways where they pass over the grass. This will allow sunlight to reach below. In addition to the small grass bed on the west of the island there are extensive beds to the northeast, east and south of the island that extend several hundred yards from the island in water depths of three to ten feet. If boat traffic in the vicinity is markedly increased due to the existence of the marina, it is conceivable that the number of propeller scars in these shallow beds could increase. At the present time the beds are already traversed by boats, some of which are owned by Petitioner's members. There are already for example, approximately 50 crafts which operate from the nearby mainland or from Pelican Canal directly to the north of the island. Propeller scars take up to fifteen years to heal yet the number of scars in the Grove Isle area is insignificant and even a tripling of them from an additional 90 boats would still be de minimus. Potential damage to the seagrasses on the north side of the island will be minimized by the planned installation of navigation markers by Grove Isle. These markers will channel boats into water of a navigable depth and lessen the number of groundings and near groundings which cause the scarring. There is evidence that pleasure boats by their very existence and operation in the water are potential pollution sources. For instance, various maintenance chemicals such as anti-fouling bottom paint and wood cleaner have the ability, if used in sufficient quantity, to harm marine life. The fueling of engines and sewage discharge from boats are additional pollution sources. There was however, no showing that the location of up to 90 pleasure and sport fishing craft at the proposed marina site would in any way cause a degradation of water quality below the acceptable standards for Class III waters. At the present time, the marina site has adequate flushing to disburse those pollutants which may be generated by the marina operations. While a hydrographic survey was not requested by DER or provided by Grove Isle at the time the permit application was made, the testimony of Dr. Echternacht at the time of the Hearing provided adequate assurances respecting the hydrographic characteristics of the proposed site. The proposed marina will have no fueling or maintenance facilities. No live-a-board craft will be allowed at the marina. Both Mr. Wm. Cleare Filer and David A. Doheny live close to Grove Isle. Mr. Doheny's residence is on the mainland facing the proposed marina site and Mr. Filer's house is on Pelican Canal. They use the waters of Biscayne Bay around Grove Isle for recreation. If the quality of the water in the proposed marina site were lessened their substantial interest would be affected. Biscayne Bay is classified as a Class III water and is in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. Careful considerations has been given to each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. To the extent that they are not contained in this Order, they are rejected as being either not supported by competent evidence or as immaterial and irrelevant to the issues determined here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, determining that the requested water quality control permit and certification be issued subject to the conditions contained in the Notice of Intent to Issue Permit and that the Relief requested by the Petitioners be denied and their Petitions be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Doheny, Esquire 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Wm. Cleare Filer 3095 Northwest 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Joel Jaffer 2479 Southwest 13th Street Miami, Florida 33145 Randall E. Denker, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry S. Stewart, Esquire Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Richmond & Greer One Biscayne Tower 25th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION BAYSHORE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-2186 79-2324 STATE OF FLORIDA, 79-2354 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and GROVE ISLE, LIMITED, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Introduction Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD or District), is a creature of the legislature having been created under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (1985). It has jurisdiction over and administers all "waters in the District", including the regulation of the management and storage of surface waters. According to the map depicted in Rule 40E-1.103, Florida Administrative Code, the SFWMD's jurisdiction appears to extend over all of Monroe, Dade, Broward, Collier, Palm Beach, Martin, Lee, Hendry and Glades Counties and portions of St. Lucie, Okeechobee, Osceola, Charlotte and Orange Counties, Florida. A precise legal description of its boundaries is found in Subsection 373.069(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1985). Under the District's surface water management permitting authority, a permit is required for the construction of any works that impound, impede, obstruct or otherwise impact the flow of water, irrespective of whether the property contains a wetland of any nature. To implement the above jurisdiction, the District has adopted by reference in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, a technical manual entitled "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Application within the South Florida Water Management District" (Basis for Review). The manual was first adopted in 1977 and has been readopted with various modifications since that time. The most recent version became effective in July 1986. The manual contains criteria to be used by the District when reviewing permit applications for the construction and operation of surface water management systems within its jurisdictional boundaries. These criteria specify the manner in which an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a project meets SFWMD objectives, and include both water quantity and quality considerations as well as environmental standards designed to protect fish and wildlife. One feature of the Basis of Review is a provision allowing an applicant to submit and implement innovative project designs as long as they meet District objectives. Many of the principles embodied in the Basis of Review have been carried forward into the challenged rules. An applicant may apply for a conceptual approval or a construction and operation (C&O) permit. The conceptual approval is a permit for a master plan when the applicant is not ready to submit all detailed drawings necessary to obtain a C&O permit. It is especially appropriate for large projects developed in phases. A conceptual approval does not authorize construction of a surface water management system, but rather authorizes a master plan with which subsequent construction and operation must be consistent. Once a conceptual permit has been issued, the individual C&O permits are then applied for and issued consistent with the terms of the conceptual permit. In 1986 the Legislature enacted Section 373.414, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). That section requires the District, not later than March 31, 1987, to "adopt a rule which establishes specific permitting criteria for certain small isolated wetlands which are not within the jurisdiction of the department (of environmental regulation) for purposes of regulation of dredging and filling." The statute goes on to require that the rule include the following: 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. The statute further provides that until the District adopts specific isolated wetland rules, its review of fish and wildlife impacts in small isolated wetlands is 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. In response to the foregoing legislation, and after a series of meetings and workshops, on November 7, 1986 the District proposed to amend existing Rules 40E-4.091 and 40E- 4.301, Florida Administrative Code. The text of the amended portion of Rule 40E-4.301 reads as follows: 40E-4.301 Conditions for Issuance of Permits. (1)(m) is not against public policy, and will meet the general and specific criteria in the document described in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), and will meet the criteria for isolated wetlands, which are found in Appendix 7 of the document described in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a) (Underscored words represent the proposed amendment.) In conjunction with the foregoing, the District prepared an economic impact statement (EIS) which read as follows: SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE RULE: 1. COST TO THE AGENCY: The proposed rule largely reflects existing policy and procedure but enunciates the specific guidelines the District applies in permitting decisions. The rule strikes a balance between specific quantitative guidelines and administrative flexibility with regard to permitting decisions. While there may be some initial implementation costs to the District, a minimal total cost increase to the agency is expected. The specific quantitative guidelines provided in the Appendix are expected to facilitate agency decisions regarding required mitigation- compensation, so that in the long run costs may actually decline as a result of implementation of the new criteria. There are no plans to change the size of District regulatory staff as a result of implementation of the standards in Appendix To the extend that additional staff is required in the future to address the impacts of permitting decisions on wetland habitat on threatened and endangered species, this impact can more correctly be attributed to the adoption of Section 373.414, F.S., by the Florida Legislature than to this rule. COSTS AND BENEFITS TO THOSE DIRECTLY AFFECTED: Appendix 7 provides the applicant with the choice of either meeting specific quantitative project design criteria or proposing a unique project design which will be reviewed by a qualitative standard to ensure that the proposed project complies with the District's objective of protecting isolated wetlands and their associated fish and wildlife functions and values. The requirements that project applications which proposed to impact wetlands provide reasonable assurances, such as mitigation/compensation, maintenance plans, monitoring and a guarantee of performance, is expected to result in some cost increases to permittees. Such require- ments are likely to improve the effectiveness of District protecting the water and related land resources of the District. IMPACT ON COMPETITION AND THE OPEN MARKET FOR EMPLOYMENT: No significant impact on competition and the open market for employment is expected. IMPACTS ON SMALL BUSINESS: The quantitative criteria in the Appendix set differential standards on the basis of isolated wetland size rather than firm size. Large projects are expected to have slightly greater flexibility in meeting the reasonable assurance requirements than small projects; however, the differential impact on small business, as defined in Section 288.703, Florida Statutes, is not expected to be significant. DATA AND METHODS USED: Data from the computer files of the District's Resource Control Department were the primary source of data used. Appendix 7 adopted by reference in amended Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(o) is a document entitled "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District - Appendix 7 - Isolated Wetlands" (Appendix 7). As originally proposed for adoption, the Appendix contained sections 1.0 through 6.0 covering the following subjects: introduction (1.0), glossary (numbered as 2.0 and containing sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.7., 2.9 and 2.10), size threshold (3.0), review procedures for projects which propose to impact isolated wetlands (numbered as 4.0 and containing sections 4.1-4.5), review criteria (5.0), quantitative design criteria (5.1.1., 5.1.2., 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.1.7 and 5.1.8), qualitative criteria (5.2-5.2.3) and project guarantee criteria (numbered as 6.0 and containing sections 6.1-6.3). For purposes of surface water management permitting, Appendix 7 applies only to activities in isolated wetlands while all other activities are subject to the criteria embodied in the Basis of Review. On November 26, 1986 petitioners, Orlando Central Park, Inc. (OCP), Real Estate Corporation of Florida, N.V. (REC), and National Association of Industrial and Office Parks, Region IV (NAIOP), filed a Petition for Administrative Determination of Invalidity of Proposed Rules wherein they sought to have declared invalid proposed rules 40E-4.091(1) and 40E-4.301(1)(o). In their petition, petitioners generally challenged all or portions of sections 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 5.1., 5.2 and 6.0-6.4 in Appendix 7 as well as the sufficiency of the EIS. In light of the above petition having been filed, the District again considered its proposed rules on January 8, 1987 and amended Appendix 7 in a number of respects. The revised Appendix has been received in evidence as joint exhibit number 2. As a result of those revisions, and as reflected in their post- hearing pleadings, petitioners have limited their attack to sections 2.2, 4.2b, 4.3, 4.4, 5.1.1a, 5.1.1b, 5.1.1d, 5.1.2, 5.1.3 and 5.1.7 in Appendix 7 and the adequacy of the EIS. On January 15, 1987 intervenor/respondent, The Florida Audubon Society (intervenor or FAS), filed a petition to intervene. This petition was granted conditioned upon intervenor proving up at final hearing its standing in the proceeding. Standing In order to challenge a proposed rule, a party must generally demonstrate that its substantial interests will be affected by the challenged rule. To do so, petitioners presented evidence on this issue at final hearing. In the same vein, the standing of intervenor was also questioned, and it too presented evidence to demonstrate its right to have access to this proceeding. REC - REC is the owner and developer of a residential and commercial development consisting of approximately 2,400 acres known as the Buenaventura Lakes Planned Unit Development between Kissimmee and St. Cloud in Osceola County. The project has been subdivided into what is known as Basins 1, 2 and 3, of which the undeveloped acreage lies within the latter Basin. The corporation has plans to develop the remaining acreage into single family and multi-family residential and commercial developments but has not yet obtained the necessary environmental permits for the undeveloped tract. Through the testimony of an REC representative, the undeveloped acreage was described as having open grasslands, wooded areas and low, marshy areas. Some portions of the land were also described as a "wet, marshy, boggy area." However, their specific size was not disclosed, and there was only conjecture on the part of petitioners' expert that the areas were in fact isolated wetlands as defined in the proposed rule. The representative fears that if jurisdictional isolated wetlands are located within Basin 3, and the rules are adopted, it will impact upon REC in that more restrictive permits will be required prior to any further development of the land. The District has previously issued construction and operation permits for Basins 1 and 2 and necessary Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) permits have also been obtained. None have been sought or issued for Basin 3, and there was no evidence that a letter of conceptual approval covering drainage in Basin 3 has been issued by the District. Had one been issued, the project might be grandfathered and exempt from the pending rules. Even so, the record does not support a finding that isolated wetlands as defined in the proposed rule are definitely located within Basin 3 so as to make REC's substantial interest affected by this proceeding. NAIOP - The NAIOP is a national non-profit organization of developers, consisting of some 6,000 members nationwide. In Florida, it has four chapters (Jacksonville, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando and Tampa) and "several hundred" members. As developers of office, industrial and commercial real estate, it is necessary that its members obtain permits from the District on certain projects within the District's jurisdiction. The association monitors all rulemaking proceedings affecting its members, and has actively lobbied the legislature on environmental matters. It has appeared before the District and DER concerning rules and policy, especially those that affect the permitting process. According to an NAIOP representative, Eric B. Eicher, approximately 30 percent of its state members do business in SFWMD jurisdictional territory. However, Eicher had no first-hand knowledge as to how many members owned property within the District, or whether any members are intending to develop isolated wetlands which would be subject to the proposed rule. Indeed, he admitted that only two members had even talked to him about the proposed rules. As such, the NAIOP has not demonstrated any immediate and discernible impact that the proposed rule would have on its members. OCP - The OCP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Martin-Marietta Corporation, a large corporation with offices in the Orlando area. However, Martin-Marietta is not a party in this proceeding. OCP itself is the owner and developer of an office, industrial and commercial park known as Orlando Center Park in Orange County, Florida. In addition, OCP acts as the developer of certain properties owned by Martin-Marietta. At the present time, OCP has approximately 2,400 acres in its own name which it intends to develop. They are generally located in an area west of the Florida Turnpike, south of Sand Lake Road, north of the Beeline Expressway and east of 1-4. Various aerial photographs and maps of the area were received in evidence as petitioners' exhibits 5, 8 and 9. It is undisputed that this property lies within the territorial jurisdiction of the SFWMD. On November 17, 1977 the District issued a permit granting conceptual approval of a master plan for the development of certain properties owned by OCP. However, the permit itself (petitioners' exhibit 15) did not include a review of impacts on wetlands for OCP's property. Therefore, the project is not grandfathered under proposed rule 4.1, and is subject to the new rules. If the proposed rules are adopted, OCP would have to modify its master plan and reduce the amount of its sellable or developable property. In two jurisdictional determinations performed by DER in 1983 and 1984, DER identified various isolated wetlands on OCP's property not subject to DER jurisdiction. These are located on what are identified as phases 8-B and 9 of the undeveloped tract of land (petitioners' exhibits 8 and 13). Since it is undisputed that OCP intends to develop this land, OCP is substantially affected by the proposed rules. FAS - Intervenor, which supports the rule amendments, is a non-profit association with principal headquarters in Maitland, Florida. Its membership numbers some 30,000, of which a large part live in Southeastern Florida and within the territorial jurisdiction of SFWMD. Although only one member (its president) testified at final hearing, it was the president's contention that "most" of its members support the proposed rules and the perpetuation of the isolated wetland as a function for wildlife. Through documentation offered in evidence as intervenor/respondent's exhibit 1, it was established that FAS owns various tracts of undeveloped land in Lee, St. Lucie and Collier Counties, which lie within SFWMD's boundaries. A part of these lands are isolated wetlands, and other parts are adjacent to wetlands areas. Although FAS expressed a fear that adjacent wetlands may be developed if the proposed rules are invalidated, it offered no proof of impending developments on isolated wetlands, or that such development would occur on properties adjacent to its own. Therefore, any adverse impact is remote and speculative, and has no immediacy or reality. The FAS has entered into a contract with the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission to administer the Florida Breeding Bird Atlas Program. Under the program, FAS has contracted to establish a baseline of the numbers and types of breeding birds in the State. The FAS fears that if the rule amendments are not adopted, the destruction of wetlands will occur, thereby interfering with its ability to carry out the contract. Again, however, it offered no proof of impending developments on adjacent isolated wetlands, or otherwise established that its substantial interests under the contract would be affected. Economic Impact Statement Other than the introduction of the EIS into evidence as joint exhibit 4, there was no relevant factual evidence presented by the parties concerning the insufficiency or inaccuracy of the EIS. It is noted, however, that the District merely estimated that the proposed rules would "result in some cost increases to the permittees", and did not attempt to precisely identify the economic impact. Respondent offered into evidence various documents upon which it relied in preparing the EIS. However, such documents are hearsay, and it was not shown what competent evidence, if any, they were intended to supplement and explain. The Challenged Rules Petitioners' real concern lies with portions of Appendix 7 which has been adopted and incorporated by reference by Rule 40E-4.301(1)(o), Florida Administrative Code. That document spells out in detail the criteria that will apply to applications for surface water management permits where the proposed activity affects isolated wetlands. As noted earlier, the Appendix is divided into a number of sections, which for ease of discussion will be referred to as "rules." Each challenged "rule" will be dealt with separately. Rule 2.2 - This rule defines an "isolated wetland" as follows: Any wetland not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for the purposes of regulation of dredging and filling. Multiple individual wetlands normally connected by surface flow during a wet season with average rainfall shall be presumed to be an isolated wetland. The first sentence of the rule simply provides that any wetland not subject to DER dredge and fill jurisdiction is to be considered an isolated wetland and subject to Appendix 7 criteria. Conversely, if a wetland is subject to DER jurisdiction, any District regulated activity affecting that land must be considered under the existing Basis of Review criteria. Petitioners' concern is with the second sentence of the rule and is that whenever multiple isolated wetlands are connected by surface flow during the wet season, they believe the rule would confer jurisdiction in SFWMD not only over the isolated wetlands themselves, but also the uplands that lie adjacent to and between the individual wetlands. But, through credible and persuasive testimony, it was established that this is not the intent or result of the proposed amendment. Indeed, it was established that jurisdiction is intended to lie only over the wetlands themselves, and not the connecting uplands. Petitioners also object to the District aggregating small isolated wetlands into a single larger isolated wetland for jurisdictional purposes. However, such aggregation is necessary because of the biological interaction between the small wetlands. Petitioners further voiced some criticism of the provision in the rule that connected wetlands shall be presumed to be an isolated wetland. Even so, the rule allows an applicant to present evidence to contradict this presumption. Finally, despite suggestions to the contrary, there was no evidence of any conflicting DER policy or concept regarding isolated wetlands, how such wetlands are defined by DER, or that DER prefers the District to follow such policy or definition. Rule 4.2b. - This rule prescribes certain information that must be filed by an applicant for a permit whenever the project impacts isolated wetlands. As is pertinent here, Section b. requires the following to be filed with the application: b. A list of all plant and animal species listed as endangered, threatened or of special concern pursuant to 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 17.12, and Rules 39-27.03, 39-27.04 and 39-27.05, Florida Administrative Code, which are incorporated by reference and made a part of this rule which utilize the area and an evaluation of the probable significance of the area to the listed species. Petitioners object to the requirement that an applicant submit a list of all plant species of special concern as defined by Rule 39-27.05, Florida Administrative Code. This rule was promulgated by the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and designates some forty-three plant "species of special concern". Petitioners' objection is based on the premise that the term "species" does not include plants, and that plant species are accordingly outside the purview of the District's permitting authority. However, they presented no evidence to support this construction of the term. In contrast, through testimony from a National Audubon Society employee, it was established that the term "species" not only includes animals, but plants as well. Mitigation/Compensation Rules - A number of rules within Appendix 7 make reference to mitigation and compensation proposals to be submitted by applicants whose projects impact isolated wetlands. As is relevant here, they include rules 4.3, 4.4, 5.1.1a., b. and d., 5.1.2, 5.1.3 and 5.1.7, all challenged by petitioners. These rules generally require or provide for mitigation when an applicant intends to impact or destroy all non-exempt isolated wetlands 0.5 acre to 5.0 acres in size. It is petitioners' contention that the District has no authority to require or otherwise provide for mitigation or compensation as a permit criterion. Mitigation is defined in rule 2.8 as "remedying isolated wetland impacts by restoring or enhancing affected habitat, or by creating similar habitat of equal or greater function". Compensation is defined in rule 2.9 as the "replacement of isolated wetlands with a mixture of wetland/upland habitat, unique upland habitat, or otherwise provide overall benefits to the natural system". Mitigation is a common practice in environmental permitting and has been routinely used by the District in its existing Basis for Review. Indeed, at the present time ``most'' applicants include a mitigation plan with their applications for permits. Even petitioners' expert conceded that the use of mitigation is "a reasonable practice" and has resulted in "better projects", and "better" protection of the water resources. Rules 4.3 and 4.4 require applicants who propose mitigation or compensation to submit certain information with their applications. This information is necessary to insure that the mitigation/compensation plan will be successful. It is also noted that mitigation is not used or required for every project, and can be avoided where a project has other built-in compensation features. The new rules simply continue existing agency policy. Rules 5.1.1a. and b. provide the following presumptions concerning mitigation and compensation: Mitigation or compensation for elimination of isolated wetlands between 0.5 and 5.0 acres in size, pursuant to Section 5.1.2 below, shall be presumed to maintain wetland functions. There is no presumption that the function of isolated wetlands over 5.0 acres in size can be maintained by measures other than protection as defined in Section 2.4 above. Protection of isolated wetlands over 5.0 acres in size shall be the preferred method of providing the required reasonable assurance, however, other reasonable alternatives proposed by the applicant will be considered. Section a. creates a presumption in favor of the applicant that mitigation or compensation, in ratios specified within the rules, shall be presumed to maintain the functions of isolated wetlands between .5 and 5 acres in size. Section b. eliminates this presumption for isolated wetlands over five acres in size since the District's experience has been that applicants have not generally been successful in mitigating larger wetlands, and that it is more difficult to mitigate and compensate for larger projects. Even so, the rule allows an applicant to present "other reasonable alternatives" to mitigation. Petitioners object to the presumption in Section b. since they contend it reposes in the District the authority to preserve isolated wetlands over 5.0 acres in size. However, this "authority" comes into play only when the criteria cannot be met, and the applicant fails to present "other reasonable alternatives". Rule 5.1.1d. provides as follows: (d) Protection of isolated wetlands or incorporation of isolated wetlands into surface water management systems in favored over isolated wetland destruction and mitigation or compensation. Wetland destruction and mitigation or compensation shall be considered only when there are no feasible project design alternatives for the particular site. Reasonable project design alternatives to isolated wetland impacts shall be considered. This rule essentially favors the protection of isolated wetlands as opposed to their destruction. It goes on to permit destruction and mitigation/compensation whenever there are no "feasible project design alternatives". In other words, the District has established a first priority of preserving wetlands whenever possible, and allowing destruction only when no "reasonable project design alternatives" are available. Under the latter situation, mitigation/compensation will then be required. Petitioners assert the term "feasible project design alternative" is not readily understood, or comprehensible to the average person. However, even their engineer stated he could "apply it", and that he "normally" goes about designing projects consistent with the terms of the rule. It was further established that the District construes the terms "feasible" and "reasonable" to be synonymous, and that the rule would not require an applicant to present a proposal that was prohibitively expensive, or technically unfeasible. Rule 5.1.2 also deals with mitigation/compensation and addresses mitigation ratios to be used by applicants. It reads as follows: Isolated wetland mitigation shall be implemented based upon ratios of acres wet- lands created, or restored to acres of wet- lands destroyed which provide reasonable assurance that the mitigation will be successful. The following ratios shall be presumed to provide such reasonable assurance for type-for-type mitigation: Forested swamp, non-cypress dominated-2. 5:1 Forested swamp, cypress dominated---2.0:1 Freshwater marshes 1.5:1 Ratios for mitigation with unlike habitat, including expanded littoral zones, or compen- sation shall be determined on a case-by-case basis. When type-for-type mitigation is provided as defined in Section 2.8 and accepted by the District prior to isolated wetland impacts, a one-to-one ratio shall be presumed to provide such reasonable assurance. The rule explains that the prescribed mitigation ratios provide reasonable assurance that the creation or restoration will be successful. It is a natural corollary to the District's mitigation/compensation policy. Testimony established that these ratios were reasonable, favor an applicant, and are consistent with the different natural communities to which they apply. Higher ratios of wetlands created to wetlands destroyed are necessary because of the time required for an artificially created replacement system to provide all of the previous native functions. Finally, the use of a one-to-one ratio when type-for- type mitigation is used reduces the amount of land required by an applicant for mitigation, and provides flexibility from the otherwise specified ratios. Rule 5.1.3 prescribes the use of mitigation/compen-sation where disturbed wetlands are impacted by a project. It reads as follows: Disturbed isolated wetlands may be developed and their loss compensated for by: Mitigation at ratios less than those required in 5.1.2, based on the degree of disturbance and the remaining functional qualities. Mitigation through restoration or other disturbed wetlands is preferred over wetland creation. Preservation of unique uplands or in- clusion of developable uplands within an up- land/wetland protected system. Mitigation or compensation shall not be required for isolated wetlands which do not provide fun- ctions and values as expressed above in Sections 1.0 and 5.0. Unlike rule 5.1.2., this rule provides for mitigation ratios based upon the degree of disturbance and the remaining functional qualities of the wetland. It is too is a natural corollary of the District's stated policy. It recognizes that some wetlands have been disturbed, and that the ratios prescribed in rule 5.1.2. are inappropriate and too rigid for a previously disturbed wetland. Rule 5.1.7 - The final rule challenged by petitioners provides for the establishment of "buffer zones" under certain conditions. It is petitioners' contention that, like many of the other cited rules, the District has no authority to adopt the rule because buffer zones in upland areas are not a part of the surface water management system. A buffer zone is defined in rule 2.7 as "an area adjacent to the isolated wetland which protects wetland function and minimizes adverse impacts of upland development on wetland function". The challenged rule reads as follows: Buffer zones may be required around all isolated wetlands that are to be protected or incorporated into a surface water management system to protect wetland function and mini- mize adverse impacts of upland development on wetland function. Actual delineation of the buffer zone may vary according to site specific conditions. Buffer zones which extends (sic) at least fifteen feet landward from the edge of the wetland in all places and averages twenty-five feet from the landward edge of the wetland will be presumed to be adequate. Prior to issuance of Construction and Operation permits, buffer zones shall be field verified and delineated in the field. Buffer zones may consist of undisturbed uplands, open water bodies, wildlife corr- idors or other natural or structural features which serve the purpose stated in Section 2.7 as appropriate for the particular site. Upland areas or wildlife corridors adja- cent to buffer zones may be incorporated as compensation areas, provided they are in excess of the minimum buffer zone and meet all other requirements for compen- sation areas. Under current District policy, buffer zones are required around wetlands whenever they are necessary to maintain the integrity of the wetland. They are a reasonable tool in the District's arsenal to protect water, fish and wildlife resources. Testimony established that they are particularly essential when an applicant proposes to build a project immediately adjacent to a wetland so that erosion or destruction of the wetland may be avoided. The rule merely extends the District's existing policy to isolated wetlands.
The Issue Whether respondent's alleged policy defining "public benefit" for purposes of Rule 16C-50.03, Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are water control districts created by special legislative acts, Ch. 69-1010, Laws of Florida (1969) (Joshua) Ch. 67-723, Laws of Florida (1967) (County Line) and 65-664, Laws of Florida (1965) (East Charlotte), and governed by Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. Within their respective jurisdictions, they have dug canals and ditches, and erected water control structures. Because aquatic weeds tend to clog the ditches and canals, each district systematically introduces herbicides. To pay for these activities, petitioners rely on ad valorem tax revenues, for the most part. Respondent Department of Natural Resources (DNR) administers the State Aquatic Plant Control Trust Fund, from which it disburses public moneys, subsidizing eligible applicants' weed control efforts. When petitioners applied for governmental assistance for fiscal year 1984-1985, DNR proposed to treat only weed control planned for perimeter canals as eligible for funding. The land within petitioners' jurisdiction is used primarily for agricultural purposes. DNR RELIES ON 1982 AMENDMENT In stating its reasons for proposing to deny in part petitioners' applications, DNR cited Rule 16C-50.03, Florida Administrative Code, which provides: Waters Eligible for State Aquatic Plant Control Funds. Only waters which are accessible to the general public or which are managed for flood prevention for public benefit by applicants, shall be eligible for state aquatic plant control funds as provided in section 372.925(5), Florida Statutes. Eligible waters shall be per- manent bodies of water, except in drought conditions, and shall not include inter- mittent water drainage ditches. Eligible "ditchbank" areas shall be those areas within five (5) feet of the water's edge at the time of treatment. The economic impact statement prepared in conjunction with the 1982 amendment of Rule 16C-50.03, Florida Administrative Code, stated: The second eligibility restriction is to assure that funding of aquatic plant control activities for the purpose of flood prevention serves to benefit the general public, not isolated commercial interests. By way of example: current rules allow funding of private agricultural irrigation or drain- age canals, thereby reducing the cost of the recipient's products (or increasing his profits) at the expense of the general public and to the detriment of competition in his industry. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 23, p. 6. DNR explained its position on petitioners' pending applications in Mr. Jubinsky's letters of October 16, 1984: The Department determines how the program objectives can be practically achieved to protect human health, safety, and recreation, and to the greatest practicable, prevent injury to plant and animal life and property. Each year we determine, on a case by case basis, the extent to which an applicant's waters are accessible to the public for recreation or pro- vide flood control for public benefit. The portions of your district deemed eligible for funding were determined to provide flood con- trol related to human health and safety, by the prevention of flooding in residential areas. The other portions of your district were determined to have insignificant or no benefit for the protection of human health or safety or recreation. Consequently, that portion of the workplan is ineligible for funding. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 17 Prior to amendment of Rule 16C-50.03, Florida Administrative Code, DNR treated all waters within petitioners' jurisdictions as eligible for funding. With the 1982 amendment DNR "started making a distinction" between "aquatic plant control that was primarily related to protection of health, safety and welfare and aquatic plant control directed towards protection of plant, animal and property." (T. 127) Petitioners' grant applications for 1982-1983 were denied on the authority of Rule 16C-50.03, Florida Administrative Code, after the amendment became effective. Petitioners Exhibit No. 14. POLK COUNTY In a letter to Mr. Mike Mahler, dated October 31, 1983, DNR advised that 15 of 34 Polk County Lakes not then included in the state aquatic plant control program were eligible for inclusion. The letter stated: After several discussions with the Department's legal staff, it has been determined that it is difficult, if not impossible to define the terms general public, accessible, and public benefit. Often such terms are intentionally left some- what vague to permit case by case determinations within the framework of the established regu- latory scheme. The primary issue is whether the public, other than the landowners in the immediate area, derive some substantial benefit from the water body. For example, applications have been accepted for vegetation control in a water body where there existed continuous public access to the bank of the water body over publicly-owned property, even where no boat access was evident. Please submit any requests for inclusion of additional water bodies into the program on the appropriate application for Department Determination of Eligibility. I hope this will serve as some guidance in trying to determine which water bodies in your region may be eligible for the State Program. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 24. There was no showing that DNR ever invoked this letter in its dealings with petitioners or anybody else, other than Mr. Mahler. NOT ALL MONEY USED Like other applicants, petitioners submitted work plans which reflected total outlays budgeted for weed control. To the extent DNR granted applications, it authorized reimbursement of a small, uniform fraction (18 percent) of total costs anticipated by those eligible. If the uniform fraction had been as high as one half, there would not have been money enough for all the applicants deemed eligible. The State Aquatic Plant Control Trust Fund regularly ends the year with substantial sums on hand. "[A]t least a few hundred thousand" (T. 124) dollars remained in the State Aquatic Plant Control Trust Fund at the end of a recent year. The parties filed proposed final orders. Proposed findings of fact have been adopted unless cumulative, subordinate, immaterial, unnecessary or unsupported by the weight of the evidence.
The Issue As stated by the Hearing Officer the issue in this case is whether the District should issue a surface water management permit to Russell E. and Marilyn F. Scott, and Caloosa Television Corporation for the construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve a television signal tower and control building in Southeast Lee County, Florida. There are no significant water resource impacts related to the management of surface water by the proposed project. The harm at issue in this case is the potential for wood storks and other wading to strike the tower and guy wires which are not structures related to management and storage of waters. The parties disagree as to whether the District has jurisdiction to consider the bird impacts related to collisions with the tower and guy wires, and if so, whether the tower and guy wires will have a significant adverse impact on the water resources of the state through a reduction of wood storks, an endangered species, and other wading birds which through feeding on fish remove biomass from such water, thereby maintaining water quality. In determining jurisdiction in this case, the parties disagree on the meaning of "works" and "surface water management system" as used in Chapter 373, F.S. and Rule 40E-4, F.A.C. The petitioners argue that since one set of guy wires will be placed across one end of the cypress wetland located on the subject property, the entire project including the guy wire and tower is a "works" and part of the surface water management system, which is subject to the permitting jurisdiction of the District. The District and respondent Caloosa Television Corporation contend that the tower and guy wires are not structures related to surface water management and are not "works" nor part of the surface water management system, and therefore, bird mortality, as a result of hitting the tower and guy wires, is not subject to the permitting jurisdiction of the District. FINDINGS ON EXCEPTIONS At the Governing Board meeting of October 6, 1988, the petitioners waived Findings of Fact exceptions 1 and 2 of Petitioners' Exceptions to Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order. Therefore, Findings of Fact exceptions 1 and 2 are rejected. The petitioners' exceptions 1, 2, and 3 to Conclusions of Law of the Recommended Order are rejected as set forth in the District's Response To Exceptions Filed by Petitioners filed on September 27, 1988, and attached hereto as Exhibit B and made part of this Final Order. The Governing Board accepts the exceptions filed by the District and the respondent, Caloosa Television Corporation, as set forth herein under Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact On or about September 14, 1987, Caloosa filed Application Number 09147- B, for a surface water management permit, with the District. This application was for the construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve a 1249 foot high television transmission tower and control building in southeast Lee County, Florida. The proposed location of Caloosa's project is approximately one mile north of the boundary of the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, which is owned and operated by Audubon, and specifically, approximately two and one-half miles north of a wood stork colony located within the Sanctuary. This rookery is the largest rookery of wood stork, a federally endangered wading bird, in the United States. The project site is 60 acres in size, and approximately square in shape. It is improved agricultural land, with a circular cypress wetland of about 5.5 acres located near the center of the site. Extending outward from the cypress wetland are two ditches, one running due east and the other due west. The existing surface water flow varies with the seasons and intensity of storm events. During dry seasons, the rainfall runoff flows into the cypress wetland and percolates into the ground. However, during wet seasons, water builds up in the cypress wetland and flows into the two ditches. In larger storm events, the project site is entirely under water, and sheet flows occur to the southwest. The proposed project should have a negligible impact on the existing surface water system since the total impervious area will only be approximately one acre, or 1.7 percent of the total project area of 60 acres. The project consists of a radio tower and guy wires, a 3150 square foot control building, fill pad and parking area, guy wire anchor slabs, and approximately 1650 feet of lime rock road with an equalizer culvert to maintain existing flow. Three sets of six guy wires will extend from the 1249 foot high tower and connect to the ground at anchor slabs located near the edge of the project site. The entire project is located outside of the limits of the existing wetland, but one set of guy wires does cross the western edge of the cypress wetland. Caloosa proposes to use the tower as a "community tower" which will be capable of supporting more than one transmitting antennae. In addition to Caloosa's antennae, the tower will be able to support up to five commercial radio stations and up to sixty two-way communication antennae. Caloosa has had contacts from several commercial radio stations and governmental agencies which have expressed interest in co-locating their antennae on Caloosa's tower. After review of this application, District staff advised Caloosa, on November 23, 1987, that it was recommending approval of the application since it was felt that any impact from the project on wood storks would not result from the construction and operation of this project. At hearing, the District supported the issuance of this permit, but urged that the tower and guy wires are not a part of the surface water management system over which the District has any permitting jurisdiction. Audubon timely filed its request for a hearing on the District's intent to issue this permit, and at hearing opposed the issuance of this permit to Caloosa, urging that the tower and guy wires were an integral part of the surface water management system, and therefore subject to the District's permitting jurisdiction. The wood stork and other wading birds are an important link in the biological and ecological chain. They are the main mechanism for removing certain species of fish from ponds, lakes and waters of the state. If there is no predation by wading birds, then an increase in the biomass of the water system would be expected, water quality would decrease, and fish kills would result. Ponds that receive biomass reduction by wading birds have a reduction in fish biomass of approximately 75%, with no loss in species, while ponds that do not receive wading bird predation lose almost all individual aquatic animals through reduced water quality resulting from retention of up to 94% of the biomass from dead fish. The reduction in biomass is in direct proportion to the number of birds feeding in a pond, and therefore a 5% reduction in birds will result in a 5% lessening of the biomass reduction. Water quality will be reduced by a lowering of oxygen levels in such waters due to the excessive retention of nutrient laden biomass. During the nesting season, wood storks feed in various ponds and wetland areas that surround the rookery. Their primary feeding areas are within ten miles of the rookery. The proximity of these sites allow the birds to make several flights per day between the colony and the feeding site, and to do so with less energy expended than with feeding sites that are farther away. Caloosa's project site is located between the rookery and a primary feeding area to the north that is within ten miles of the rookery. The proximity of this feeding area allows the birds to fly low, at tree top level, to the site, without the use of thermal updrafts that they use to attain altitudes of up to 5000 feet when traveling greater distances. Thus, if the tower is built, it would be likely that wood storks would fly in the direction of, and at the height of, the tower to reach this primary feeding area. However, it was not established how many such birds actually feed in this nearby area, or how many fish are in these ponds and wetlands. The wood stork colony at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary has been experiencing a decline in productivity from approximately 6000 nesting pairs in 1960 and 1966, there has been a steady decline in the number of nesting pairs in the colony, and in 1987, there were no nesting pairs in the colony. During 1988, 750 nesting pairs have been observed. The steady decline in the wood stork colony population is the result of already existing developmental pressures and changes in drainage patterns which have adversely affected the birds' feeding habitats. For nesting to be successful, two adult birds are required per nest during the nesting season, which usually occurs from November to March. This allows one adult bird to be away from the nest obtaining food while the other adult keeps the nest warm and safe from predators. If a nest is left unattended through the loss of one adult bird, it is likely that the entire nest will be lost since the fledglings are very vulnerable throughout the nesting season to predators and changes in temperature. There are usually two or three fledglings per nest. For this reason, the loss of five adult birds per year, for example, results in a total loss to the colony of between ten to fifteen fledglings. This loss compounds each year, as birds lost one year are not available to reproduce in following years. Generally, transmission towers can pose a hazard to birds due to the potential for collisions. Illuminating such towers at night does not decrease this danger since the birds are simply attracted to lights. Strobe lighting has also been tried, but it appears that birds ignore, or are not deterred, by strobes. In this case, Caloosa has agreed to accept conditions placed upon the approval of this project by the Lee County Board of Zoning and Adjustments on March 16, 1987, which include placement of aircraft warning balls on the guy wires and the tower itself, habitat improvement including the creation of a wetland and a wildlife through way, if necessary, and commencement of a monitoring system to identify any problems with wood stork mortality as soon as possible. A very extensive study of bird kills and transmission towers was conducted over a thirty year period involving the WCTV tower in Tallahassee, Florida. The WCTV tower was found to kill 3.9 wading birds per year on average. Based in part upon this data, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that wood stork collisions with the tower will not result in significant mortality, and an "incidental take" of five wood storks per year should result. This is a level of mortality which is noteworthy, since any loss to an endangered species is significant, but is clearly below that which would cause jeopardy to the species. Although Audubon correctly pointed out that the conditions present in the WCTV study do not exactly match those present in this case, such as the fact that there are almost three times as many wading birds in the area of the Caloosa tower as were in the area of the WCTV tower, as well as the differences in the geographical relationship of the tower to nearby wading bird colonies and feeding areas, nevertheless, the WCTV study is relevant and should be considered by the District since it is the most exhaustive study of its kind ever conducted. Caloosa presented evidence of a study it conducted over approximately a one month period in May and June, 1988, of a comparable existing radio tower, the WHEW tower, located near the subject property to the east. Although substantial wood stork and other wading bird activity was observed around the WHEW tower, there were no collisions of wood storks with this 1010 foot high tower. While not a scientific study in the strictest sense, and although it was not conducted for as extensive a period as the WCTV study, nevertheless, the District should consider the WHEW study conducted by Caloosa since it involves a comparable tower in close proximity to the subject property, and the person who conducted the study for Caloosa and who testified at hearing, Robert E. Gatton, appeared particularly credible. The Federal Communications Commission has approved the location of Caloosa's tower. I5. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission has recommended that the proposed location for Caloosa's tower be changed to an alternate site which would present a less serious obstacle to the Corkscrew wood stork nesting colony and other wading birds. This recommendation is based on the policy that the mortality of even one wood stork is too much and may present a danger to the population of the wood stork rookery. It was not shown, however, that a basis in fact exists for concluding that the loss of five or fewer wood storks per year would present such a danger. The Commission's recommendation is also based upon a concern that transmission towers will proliferate in the area, and thereby further interfere with the flight paths of wood storks and other wading birds to their feeding locations. However, the fact that Caloosa is seeking to construct a "community tower" to be shared with several governmental agencies, as well as broadcasting stations, will actually serve to decrease this potential proliferation. While there is a potential for wood storks or other wading birds in the area to be killed or injured by striking Caloosa's tower or the guy wires while in flight, the extent of this danger is speculative, but would not appear to exceed five wood storks per year. Under these circumstances, there would not be a significant threat to the population, or continued viability, of the Corkscrew rookery. It has not been shown, by the evidence in this record, that any loss of wood storks and other wading birds caused by this project will result in fish kills through a significant reduction of predation and the resulting failure to remove accumulated biomass in ponds and waters in the area. It was not demonstrated that a fish kill will, or is even likely, to occur. While the loss of five wood storks would result in a certain amount of biomass not being removed from the area's wetlands, nothing in the record suggests that this amount will have an adverse impact on the state's water resources or will otherwise be significant. Therefore, any relationship between the tower proposed by Caloosa and impacts associated with biomass accumulation is purely speculative and de minimis. Fish kills occur naturally as water levels in seasonal marshes and ponds lower in the dry season. The water quality impact of such kills is relatively short-lived, lasting up to two months or until the next wet season begins, at which time water quality parameters return to normal. The evidence produced at hearing does not establish that the project and its surface water management system will have any significant or measurable effect on drainage of surface water runoff from the subject property, or on adjacent properties. The drainage system proposed by Caloosa will utilize the existing ditches and the natural cypress pond on the property. It was established that the post-construction effect of the project on drainage would be insignificant. There are, therefore, no drainage impacts associated with this project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the District enter a Final Order approving Caloosa's application for surface water management permit number 09147-B, subject to the conditions, agreed to by Caloosa, which were imposed by the Lee County Board of Zoning and Adjustment in its approval of this proposed development. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5578 Rulings on Audubon's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 3. 2-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but otherwise Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. 4-5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as a summation of testimony. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 7-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 9-10 Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 12-15. Adopted and Rejected, in part, in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 10, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 12, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and as argument on the evidence. Rejected in Finding of Fact 13, and otherwise as simply a summation of the testimony and argument on the evidence. 20-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 22-23. Rejected in Findings of Fact 15-17. 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rulings on Caloosa's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted In Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5, but otherwise Rejected as a conclusion of law and as simply a summation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 9-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 15-16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and as cumulative. Rulings on the District's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding-of Fact I. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 4-5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 14, 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 15. Rejected as irrelevant. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 18-19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Lee Senior Vice President Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, Florida 32751 Russell P. Schropp, Esquire Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 James K. Sturgis, Esquire Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 John R. Wodraska Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner SFWMD is a public corporation of Florida. It is charged with the responsibility of issuing permits and enforcing orders relating to surface water management within its jurisdictional boundaries. Respondents Hubschman, as trustees, have full rights of ownership in 1,280 contiguous acres located in Sections 17 and 20, Township 47 South, Range 26 East, Lee County, Florida. These lands are known as Bonita Farms I and II. They are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of SFWMD. In their pre- developed state, these lands could generally be categorized as marsh and wetlands with cypress forest and some uplands in the northern half of the project area. After deciding to develop the acreage for use as pasture and farmland for small vegetable crops, Respondents Hubschman applied for a surface water management permit from SFWMD. The purpose of the permit was to allow the construction and operation of a water management system that would serve both farms. A system was designed to drain water off both parcels through a 62-acre retention area into a natural slough system which runs water into Kehl Canal. In order to create the system, the Respondents Hubschman had the following facilities designed for the site: internal ditches, dikes, pumps, a retention area and control structures. On April 15, 1982, SFWMD issued Surface Water Management Permit No. 36- 00315-S, and Respondents Hubschman were allowed to proceed with their proposed construction plan. A modification to the permit was issued on April 14, 1983. The retention area was enlarged from 62 acres to 88 acres by relocating the perimeter dike. The outfall structure was revised in that the two pumps and the weir were to be replaced by three 18" CMP culverts that would discharge the drained water by gravity flow from the retention area through the slough into Kehl Canal. The duration of the construction phase of its permit was a three-year period, unless the construction of the permitted project discharge structure or equivalent had been completed prior to that date. After the close of the three-year period, there was a dispute between the Respondents and SFWMD as to whether the permit had expired. The controversy was resolved through a compromise agreement. An application for the reissuance of Permit No. 36-00315-S was filed on October 13, 1986. Instead of reissuing Permit No. 36-00315-S, as requested by Respondents Hubschman, SFWMD decided to issue a new permit on May 14, 1987. As part of the processing procedures, SFWMD again reviewed and approved the entire surface water management system designed to serve the 1,280 acres of land proposed by Respondents. Because the additional work proposed for Section 17, the northern section was limited at this stage of development to the selective clearing of additional upland areas to create more improved pasture, the new permit directed attention to Section 20, the southern section of the land. The new permit advised the Respondents that if they wanted to propose additional development to Section 17, they were required to seek a modification of this new permit, Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00764-S, to include those changes. The Respondents applied for a modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S on July 30, 1987. The proposed modification sought to change the status of the development of Section 17 from improved pasture to small vegetable farmland on 639 acres. The surface water management system plan was modified to drain water in Section 17 to the reservoir on Section 20. The water would be directed via a series of lateral ditches and swales. A six foot high dike and one 27,000 GPM pump were also required. Two additional 18" CMP culverts were required at the discharge facilities to accommodate the increased outflow. The Modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S was approved and issued on June 16, 1988. The original Permit NO. 36-00764-S and its modification are similar to a contract novation because the new permits substituted new obligations between the parties for the old ones under Permit No. 36-00315-S. Based upon this approach to the situation, SFWMD allowed the construction work completed under Permit No. 36-00315-S prior to the Stop Work Order of August 27, 1986, to vest. The completion of the berm around the reservoir in Section 20, as set forth in the letter from Elizabeth D. Ross, attorney for SFWMD, on September 19, 1986, was also allowed to vest. However, if the vested matters were changed in the subsequent permits, they became revisions. The revisions take precedence over the vested matters. Otherwise, completed construction under Permit No. 36- 00764-S as modified, and post Stop Work Order construction remains in effect perpetually for the operation portion of the permit. In order to determine with certainty what was permitted when the Notice of Violation was issued on December 20, 1988, the parties would have to look to the project work actually completed on August 27, 1986, the specific construction approved by SFWMD after that date, the subsequent Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00764-S issued May 14, 1987, and its Modification issued June 16, 1988. The substantial compliance determination issued by Richard A. Rogers, P.E., Resource Control Department dated September 24, 1987, should also be considered as authorized activity. The Notice of Violation dated December 20, 1988, was issued to Respondent Samuel Hubschman, Trustee. He was advised that recent routine inspections indicate that current on-site activity was in violation of Special Conditions 2,3,4,7,14, 17 & 23 of Permit No. 36-00764-S (issued 5/14/87) and Special Conditions 5,16 & 22 of 36-00315-S (modified 6/16/88). A meeting to resolve these issued was suggested by SFWMD. Respondent Hubschman agreed to attend the meeting through his consultants. Both parties elected to attempt resolution of the Notice of Violation controversy through negotiations in a meeting scheduled for January 5, 1989. To demonstrate their sincerity, the parties agreed not to bring attorneys to the meeting. During the meeting, the parties resolved the controversy by agreeing to the following: SFWMD would no longer consider the project to be in violation of Florida law if the Respondents submitted certain items that would cause SFWMD to issue certain permits and modify others. The Respondents would promptly file an application for a dewatering permit so that the governing board could issue the permit at its March 9, 1989 meeting. The Respondent's contractor would make no field changes in the mitigation or excavation areas without first obtaining appropriate permit modification from SFWMD. Small jockey pumps were to be installed to pump water from the internal water management system into certain cypress and/or mitigation areas for the sole purpose of establishing wetland vegetation within the areas. Respondents were to apply for a modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, to allow a single phase of mining for the entire affected area. The perimeter dike was to be made structurally adequate. Respondents were to submit an alternative proposal for the disposal of cap rock within ninety days. In the meantime, the contractor could continue to bury the cap rock within the mitigation areas. Both parties demonstrated their reliance on the settlement reached in the meeting by their subsequent actions towards completing and processing the applications for permit modifications and additional permits. Although the noted violations were not cured by these actions, the parties intended to reach a cure or to mitigate for present permit violations through new permit conditions. The preliminary staff review of the Respondents' application for modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, was completed by March 31, 1989. The following information was requested by SFWMD staff: Revised engineering calculations which reflect that the permitted discharge structure is five 18" CMP culverts. An explanation as to why the 6.3 acre maidencane/juncus marsh designated as a preserve area and the adjacent western preserve area were excavated and otherwise disturbed by project activities. The scrapedown methodology for the replanting of mitigation areas. The Respondents' plans for the area delineated on the plans as pine, which is currently permitted as part of a cypress preservation area. Dike certification and reservoir certification. The above-listed information was required to be returned to the SFWMD within ninety days from the date of the written request. At the close of the ninety days, the information was not received. A second request for a response within thirty days was submitted by SFWMD on August 4, 1989. In September 1989, the Respondents attempted to comply with SFWMD's second request for information. Communications continued in regard to the filed application for modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, into December 1989. After the thirty days expired for the response to the second request for information dated August 4, 1989, SFWMD filed the Administrative Complaint in these proceedings. After the second request for information, a partial response was received from Respondent Hubschman's consultants. The application continues to go through the review process. It has not yet been deemed complete by SFWMD. As part of the resolution of the Notice of Violation dated December 20, 1988, SFWMD issued permit No. 36-01023-W to Respondent Hubschman for construction dewatering, excavation of an irrigation pond, and water storage at the site. The permit was issued on March 9, 1989. Special condition No. 20 of this permit requires a 200-feet setback from the cypress mitigation area and the irrigation pond being dewatered. The setback is shown on Exhibit 10 of the Bonita Farms Dewatering Application which was made part of the permit. A copy of the permit was attached to the Administrative Complaint. No evidence was submitted by SFWMD regarding alleged violations of Special condition No. 20 which were allegedly observed and documented after the permit was issued, before the filing of the Administrative Complaint Respondent Bob Cadenhead is the contractor hired by Respondents Hubschman to construct the surface water management system. There was no evidence presented to show the connection of another party, Respondent, Cadenhead & Sons Construction, to the project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00315-S be deemed to have vested as to all construction activity completed under the permit which was not addressed in the subsequent permit issued by SFWMD. The completion of the berm, as set forth in Attorney Ross' September 19, 1986 letter, should also be allowed to vest. That Permit No. 36-00764-S and its later modification be ordered to supercede the prior permit in all matters specifically addressed. That the parties be held to their prior agreements to resolve pending permit violations through the permit modification process. That the alleged dewatering violation in paragraph 19 of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed for lack of evidence. That a specific deadline be set to reasonably complete pending application modifications. That all future enforcement action specifically comply with Rule 40E- 1.612, Florida Administrative Code, and remain separate from any permit or permit modification applications. That the parties create a new, active permit file with current drawings and a specific construction schedule. That the Administrative Complaint and Order filed in these proceedings be dismissed. That future agreements be reduced to writing and signed by the proper parties before they are relied upon by either party. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5737 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO number 4. Accepted. See HO number 3. Accepted. Rejected. Improper summary. Accepted. See HO number 6. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Irrelevant. Argumentative. Rejected. Legal argument. Accepted. See HO number 5. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15. The argument presented in this paragraph is overly punctilious. It ignores the detrimental reliance of opposing parties to the agreement. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15 and number 16. Rejected. Legal argument and improper opinion. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15 and number 16. Rejected. Matters presented were either not ripe for these proceedings or not proved at hearing. See HO number 16-number 20 and HO number 23. Rejected. Contrary to fact and law. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings as separate from the Notice of Violation. Irrelevant. Accepted as fact, resolved by agreement. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 15. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 15. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. See HO number 15. Rejected. Cumulative. Rejected. See HO number 11-number 12. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO number 9. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 16-number 20. Rejected. Matter is still pending. See HO number 16-number 20. Rejected. Resolved through agreement. See HO number 15. Rejected. Matter is still pending. See HO number 16- number 20. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Not in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO number 21. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO number 13. Rejected. See HO number 23. Contrary to fact and pleadings. Accepted. See HO number 14. Accepted. See HO number 15. Accepted. See HO number 15. Accepted. See HO number 20. Accepted. Rejected. Argumentative. See HO number 20. Accepted. See HO number 4-number 7. Rejected. Contrary to fact. The permit modifica- tion specifically required replacement of a pump with 3 culverts. See HO number 5. Accepted. See HO number 5. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 7. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 7. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 7 and number 11. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 11. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO number 15. Additional matters were agreed upon which were not reflected in the letter. This is an incomplete summary. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant to these proceedings. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 8 and number 9. Rejected. See HO number 8 and number 9. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO number 23. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Fumero, Esquire Office of General Counsel South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire OERTEL HOFFMAN FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Russell Schropp, Esquire HENDERSON FRANKLIN STARNES & HOLT, P.A. 1715 Monroe Street Fort Myers, Florida 33902 John R. Wodraska, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
