The Issue This case arises out of the denial by the Department of Environmental Regulation of an application by the Petitioner to construct a 24-slip marina on Bayou Chico in Pensacola, Florida. At the formal hearing, Petitioner testified on his on behalf and offered and had admitted into evidence one exhibit. The Respondent called as its only witness, Jeremy Craft, and offered and had admitted into evidence four exhibits. Counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with this order, they were rejected as not being supported by the evidence or as unnecessary to a resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact On March 18, 1982, Petitioner applied for a permit to dredge approximately 78,480 cubic yards from Bayou Chico and an unnamed embayment adjacent to the Bayou. The proposed project site is located in Pensacola, Florida, Bayou Chico in Section 59, Township 2 South, Range 30 West. Specifically, the project site is located on the south side of Bayou Chico just north of the Barrancas Avenue Bridge. On April 15, 1982, the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, sent a completeness summary to the Petitioner requesting additional information before the application or permit could be processed. Over a period of approximately a year and a half, Department of Environmental Regulation conferred with Petitioner concerning the proposed project and a number of different plans were discussed. In July of 1983, Petitioner submitted the July 11, 1983 plan, with modifications, and withdrew all prior plans. It is this plan which is the subject of this hearing. A field appraisal of the proposed site was made by Department of Environmental Regulation on December 25, 1982. On August 31, 1983, Department of Environmental Regulation issued an Intent to Deny the Petitioner's permit application. The Intent to Deny encompassed all plans and revisions submitted by the Petitioner, Department of Environmental Regulation based its denial on Petitioner's failure to give reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated by his project. The Department's denial also asserted that the project would also result in matters adverse to the public interest. The final proposal submitted by the Petitioner sought a permit to dredge a strip 100 feet wide by 450 feet long to a depth of 6 feet. This strip is adjacent to a spit or strip of land which separates Chico Bayou from the emboyment. This plan was subsequently modified to include dredging an additional 100 to 150 feet along the full length of the strip. This additional dredging would take the dredged area out to the deep water of Chico Bayou and was intended to eliminate a channeling effect. The purpose of the dredging is to enable the Petitioner to construct a marina or docking facility along the split. The marina would include 24 slips. The proposed dredge area gradually slopes from the shoreline to five and six foot depths 200 to 250 feet from the spit. The water in the embayment is highly polluted and at one time was used as a holding pond for mahogany logs because the wood-boring worms could not survive in the water. Bayou Chico is also very polluted and fails to meet the water quality standards found in Rule 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code, for the parameters lead, cadmium, copper, and aluminum among others. The bayou has for many years been used for boat and barge traffic. Jeremy Craft testified on behalf of DER and his opinions as to the impact of the project on water quality and marine life were uncontroverted. In Mr. Craft's opinion, the dredging proposed by the Petitioner would result in further degradation of the water quality in Bayou Chico by eliminating important shallow areas and underwater grasses. The deepening of the dredged area would limit the amount of oxygen available to the water in the bayou thereby harming the aquatic life by freeing many of the heavy metals which are presently bound in the sediments in the bayou. The shallow areas are the most important areas in cleansing the water. With increased oxidation, the biota survive better and the water is better cleansed. Freeing the heavy metals would allow their introduction into the food chain and accumulation in living organisms. The Petitioner has not informed DER of his specific dock specifications, stormwater plans, upland development plans, or dredge disposal plans. The type of dock will determine the type of boating traffic and this will indicate the amount and content of stormwater discharge. Because of the contaminated nature of the spoil, the Petitioner must provide reasonable assurances that the spoil and spoil water will be properly retained. Petitioner testified on his own behalf but did not present any evidence relating to the impact the proposed prod act would have on water quality.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the Petitioner's application for a permit as set forth in the Intent to Deny previously issued by the Department. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of May 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Thulman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Joe Pair 1200 Mahogany Mill Road Pensacola, Florida 32907 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent Felo McAllister and his wife Dorothy own a home and dock on Texar Bayou off Escambia Bay in Pensacola, Florida. A storm sewer with a diameter of 15 to 18 inches empties into the Bayou near the dock. The silt- laden outflow from the storm sewer has resulted in a sand bar or berm two or three feet wide paralleling the shoreline from the McAllisters' property line to the dock. This sand bar separates a ditch caused by the outflow from Texar Bayou. Over the years, silt has accumulated underneath the dock. The McAllisters originally applied for a permit to dredge boat slips at the dock. Andrew Feinstein, an environmental specialist II in respondent Department's employ, evaluated the original application and recommended denial, because he felt extending the dock was preferable to dredging. The McAllisters then modified their application so as to seek a permit for dredging at the mouth of the storm sewer in order that the silt already deposited there would not wash underneath the dock. Mr. Feinstein and Michael Clark Applegate, an environmental specialist III and dredge and field supervisor employed by the Department, testified without contradiction that the Department has reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not violate any applicable rules. The permit DER proposes to issue contemplates that the berm will not be breached. The bottom on which the dredging is proposed to take place belongs to the City of Pensacola. Although under water, it is a part of a dedicated roadway. The City itself does maintenance dredging to ensure the efficiency of storm sewers, but is glad for assistance from private citizens in this regard. J. Felix, City Engineer for Pensacola, is authorized allow dredging on this road right of way, and has done so. See also respondent's exhibit No. 2. The site proposed for placement of the spoil is a low area affected by flooding. Fill there would affect drainage onto neighbors' property.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent DER issue respondent McAllister the permit it proposed to issue in its letter of September 14, 1979, upon condition that the spoil be placed at least 100 feet from the water's edge. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Hyde, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Larry Jay Sauls and Ms. Harriett Tinsley Sauls 14 West Jordan Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Felo McAllister 2706 Blackshear Pensacola, Florida 32503
The Issue The issue is whether Vista of Fort Walton Beach, LLC (Vista), should be issued Surface Water Management Permit No. 04-2012-0013G authorizing the construction of an earthen embankment dam and impoundment to impound stormwater runoff from a proposed commercial development in the City of DeFuniak Springs (City), Walton County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The District has regulatory jurisdiction over the construction of certain types of impoundments within its boundaries. If an impoundment is at least ten feet high but less than 25 feet in height and has an impounding capacity of at least 50 acre-feet, a general permit is required. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A-4.041(1). Vista, a limited liability corporation, owns an odd- shaped parcel in the City on which it intends to build a small commercial development consisting of a 17,000-square foot building, a parking lot, and related amenities. The vacant parcel abuts the north side of U.S. Highway 90 just east of 18th Street and is approximately 1.66 acres in size. The property is partially wooded and has a small wetland area on its northeastern corner. In conjunction with the proposed commercial development, Vista intends to construct an impoundment to control stormwater runoff from the project. Because the impoundment will be ten feet high and have an impounding capacity of at least 50 acre-feet, Vista is required to obtain a general permit. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A-4.041(1). Vista filed a permit application with the District on June 8, 2012. On August 8, 2012, the District gave notice that it intended to issue a surface water management permit to Vista. The permit allows the construction of a stormwater retention basin. A mitigation plan for impacts to 0.23 acres of wetlands was also approved but is not at issue in this proceeding. As described in the District staff report, the project will encompass one earthen embankment dam and impoundment to impound the storm runoff. It will operate as a dry stormwater retention basin designed to impound water only during rainfall events. The facility will utilize a pipe and riser spillway system, and the basin outfall will be protected by a rip-rap lined plunge pool. Due to space restrictions, an engineered retaining wall will be incorporated into the embankment's north side slope. The stormwater will discharge through controlled overflow structures into a nearby wetland area that lies northeast of Vista's property and will then be integrated into an existing channel that eventually forms the headwaters of Sandy Creek to the north. Petitioner has resided on her property since around 1932. Her odd-shaped parcel, described as being between five and seven acres in size, lies immediately to the north of Vista's property. A small wetland is located on the southeastern corner of her property. The two parcels share a common boundary line, appearing to be no more than a hundred feet or so. Because the boundary line is lower than the highest part of each owner's property, a "trench" has formed along the line. Wabash Avenue, a platted but un-built roadway that begins on U.S. Highway 90, runs to the northwest through the wetland area and along the eastern boundaries of both properties. As alleged in the Second Amended Petition, Petitioner is concerned that the project will cause flooding on her property. In a broader sense, she appears to be opposed to any commercial development on Vista's property. The back side of the Vista parcel slopes downhill to a recessed area that is adjacent to both properties. Although some fill has already been placed on the property in preparation for the development, the applicant intends to add "a lot" more fill to the entire parcel to create a gradual slope down to the edge of Wabash Avenue. A basin or pond around 0.20 acres in size will be formed within the fill area and a retaining wall consisting of multiple segments will be constructed around the basin. The wall will be separated from Petitioner's property by a 20-foot buffer, while at its closest point the basin will be "35 feet or so" from her property line. The plans submitted by the applicant demonstrate that the system will be built in accordance with all District standards and should operate in a safe manner. Before construction can begin, the District must approve the retaining wall design specifications. During rain events, the first inch of water will be retained on site for treatment. Additional water will be stored in the basin and then slowly allowed to discharge from the basin into the wetlands. The point of discharge from the basin is at a location a minimum of 20 feet south and east of Petitioner's property line. To ensure that the retention system will not discharge runoff at a higher rate than was discharged before development, Vista performed hydrologic calculations demonstrating pre- and post-development runoff. According to accepted models developed by the United States Department of Agriculture and its predecessor, the Soil Conservation Service, the current peak runoff from the Vista property is 2.46 cubic feet per second (CFS) during a two-year, 24-hour storm event. After development, the volume of water will be reduced to 0.74 CFS. During a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the volume of runoff post-development is anticipated to drop from 12.59 CFS to 6.51 CFS. Finally, during a 100-year, 24-hour storm event, post- development runoff will be slightly reduced from 19.64 CFS to 18.99 CFS. Therefore, as sited, sized, and designed, the project will reduce runoff during all anticipated storm events. The foregoing calculations were not credibly contradicted and satisfy the requirement that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the project will not cause an increased flow such that it will endanger downstream property in times of flood with respect to state or frequency. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A-4.301(2)(f). They also confirm that water in the impoundment will not be raised to a level that could be harmful to the property of others. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A- 4.301(2)(c). Thus, the potential for flooding on Petitioner's property will be reduced if the project is constructed as permitted. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is currently repairing the drainage system on U.S. Highway 90 in front of the Vista property. Stormwater from that project drains into the wetlands through an easement deeded to the City at the rear of the Vista property. Petitioner pointed out that after the DOT project began, and fill was added to the Vista property, she has experienced an increase in water on her property. Whether the DOT project is responsible in any way for this hydrologic change is not known. However, accepted testimony by two professional engineers supports a finding that Vista is not responsible for any hydrologic changes on Petitioner's property. Vista was not required to take into account any runoff from the DOT project in making its hydrologic calculations because the amount of runoff from its own property will actually be reduced by the retention system. At hearing, Petitioner contended that a fence she built on the common boundary line with Vista sometime after 1990 was illegally removed by Vista in order to construct the basin. According to Mr. George, who first surveyed the property line in 1990 and then surveyed it a second time a few years ago, the fence was built a few feet beyond Petitioner's property line and lies within the buffer zone between the basin and her property. Petitioner argues that even if this is true, the doctrine of adverse possession applies and she is now the owner of the property on which the fence was built. This type of dispute, however, can only be resolved in circuit court, and not in an administrative forum. See § 26.012(2)(g), Fla. Stat. The District has examined the property records and is satisfied that Vista has ownership of the property on which the impoundment will be built. Notably, the basin will not be located within the 20-foot buffer where the fence once stood and which is dedicated to the City as an easement. Finally, through cross-examination at hearing, Petitioner suggested that any project designed by humans carries with it the remote possibility that it will fail and create a catastrophic situation on her property. In the unlikely event that the design and operation of the retention basin threaten the safety of adjoining property owners, section 373.429 and rule 40A-1.205 enable the District to revoke, suspend, or modify a permit to protect the safety of others.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Northwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of Surface Water Management System Permit No. 04-2012-0013G to Vista. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathon Steverson, Executive Director Northwest Florida Water Management District 152 Water Management Drive Havana, Florida 32333-4712 Helen J. Crenshaw 61 North 18th Street DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433-9547 Kevin X. Crowley, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 James Busby Vista of Fort Walton Beach, LLC Post Office Box 760 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549-0760
Findings Of Fact Mr. C. A. Rossetter, Petitioner, owns and resides in a house located adjacent to the Indian River at 1020 South Patrick (now Riverside) Drive in Indialantic, Florida, and has resided on that property for approximately 21 years. He owns a 31-foot power boat which draws 3.5 feet of water and is currently docked at his sister's house in neighboring Eau Gallie, Florida. His own property has no dock at the present time, and the water depth in the river, which out to a distance of several hundred feet is less than 3.5 feet, is therefore too shallow to allow access to his property by his boat. On June 11, 1982, Petitioner submitted a request to the Department to dredge, subsequently assigned number 050567924, which was received in the local office of the Department on June 15, 1982. This request was for permission to dredge next to a boat pier to be constructed which would allow access with his boat. The area to be dredged was 15 feet wide from the shoreline, out 100 feet to the end of the pier, then an additional 100 feet beyond, with a 15- by 20- foot area in front of the "L" end of the pier, north of the main dredging area. Drawings submitted with the application indicated the total volume to be dredged was 300 cubic yards. Proposed use of the property was to be private. When the application was received by the Department, it was reviewed by Barbara Bess, a marine biologist, in August, 1982. In September, 1982, Ms. Bess visited the site, talked with the Petitioner, and made general observations as to the site, the river, and the surrounding property. She returned to the property on October 7, 1982, with her supervisor, Mr. Reese Kessler, from the Department's Orlando office. Mr. Kessler is an expert in the effects of dredging on marine species and habitat. As a result of the two visits and her evaluation, on October 8, 1982, Ms. Bess submitted a memorandum on this application in which she thoroughly described the request, the area, and the effect the dredging would have on the ecology, ultimately concluding that the public interest would not be served by permitting the dredging of a navigational channel for one private landowner 1/ and that it would be far less damaging to the already impacted area to construct a long dock which, if kept under 1,000 square feet in area, would qualify for exemption from permit requirement status. She also recommended that the permit be denied. Thereafter, on November 9, 1982, the Department issued the Intent to Deny, pointing out that the proposed dredging would adversely affect 3,300 square feet of the Indian River marine biological resources, would serve only one individual property owner, and, therefore, was not in the public interest. The area where the Petitioner proposed the operation is exclusively residential with commercial areas approximately one mile to the south and three miles to the north at the causeways. Petitioner's property extends approximately 120 feet on the river and eastward to South Patrick Drive. The residence is a single family dwelling. Petitioner had previously installed a seawall approximately five feet waterward of mean high water. The area between the seawall and the shoreline has weed-covered water and has not been filled in. Petitioner had a prior permit for a dock (since expired) which called for a sloping riprap in front of the seawall. This has not been done. The river bottom at Petitioner's property is an almost totally unvegetated soft, fine gray sand and silt. There is an abundance of marine life present, however, including penaid shrimp, polychaetes, Nemertean worms, comb jellies, mollusks, annelids, and fish, primarily mullet. Dredging would be by means of a suction dredge to cut into the bottom. With the exception of one species of edible clam, the majority of the invertebrate sea life in the area serves as the bottom part of the food chain in the area as food for more advanced sea life forms such as fish, crabs, etc. Mullet, for example, which is quite populous here, is a commercially valuable species, as are snook, trout, and snapper. Dredging of the channel proposed would remove the top 2.5 feet of bottom, along with all the marine life that it contains. In its place over a period of time would accumulate a black, oozy silt (known to some as black mayonnaise) which settles into any depression left in the bottom. This silt permits the growth on nonlight-requiring algae and other plant life which, when decaying, creates hydrogen sulfide, the substance responsible for the terrible odor often experienced in the area. In addition, other types of less desirable life forms come in to replace that which is taken. While experience has shown in other areas where dredging has taken place that there is some regeneration of beneficial and favorable life forms, the affected area will never have the same degree of population of desirable sea life as exists before dredging. This is caused by the accumulation of silt in the dredged area which blocks oxygen from getting to the organisms which live in the bottom. Almost any activity can have an adverse effect on the bottom, such as walking across the bottom, water skiing above it, etc., but these activities, which do not deeply scar the bottom, have only a short-term and unmeasurable impact. A comparison of this short-term damage to the long-term damage of dredging and removal of a part of the bottom clearly reveals that the by far greater adverse impact comes from dredging. That which is removed by dredging is not soon replaced. Admittedly, the holes needed to insert pilings for the dock would also cause some damage, but not nearly as much. What is significant is the degree of damage caused by the options. In determining whether or not to grant a permit, the agency considers several factors. One is whether there will be damage to the ecology and the environment, and if so, how much. A second factor is the cumulative effect-- would this permit establish a precedent that would be undesirable from an ecological viewpoint? In the event there are affirmative findings of potential damage and the degree thereof, the next question is whether to grant the permit would be in the public interest. Here, in the opinion of Ms. Bess and Mr. Kessler, it would not. Other dredging in the area, such as that accomplished by the county approximately a mile from this site, which benefited only six families, cannot be compared because it was only to clean out a channel which had previously been dredged. Petitioner's would be cutting into virgin bottom and to do so for one family's private use, with its precedent-setting potential, when a far less damaging alternative is available cannot reasonably be justified as in the public good. Dredging for Petitioner in this area would have a substantial adverse impact on the marine ecology of the immediate area. Petitioner, as a riparian owner, has the right to enjoy his property, but the proposed alternative of a dock gives Mr. Rossetter ingress and egress to his property from the water with the least harm to the ecology of the river. Petitioner was served with a series of interrogatories pursuant to Rule 28-5.208, Florida Administrative Code, on January 10, 1983. He failed to answer these interrogatories. Petitioner was also served with a Request for Admissions under the same rule on January 20, 1983, and again failed to respond. Petitioner at no time requested relief from either attempt at discovery, even though he was reminded of his failure to comply, by the Hearing Officer, at the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's request for a dredge permit be denied. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1983.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Ben A. Leasure, should have a $3,000.00 administrative penalty imposed, take corrective action, and pay investigative costs for allegedly illegally filling 0.17 acres of wetlands contiguous with the Withlacoochee River (River), a Class III water, on land located in unincorporated Hernando County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent is the owner of an approximate 5-acre parcel of land located at the intersection of Olivet Drive and State Road 50 (5345 Olivet Drive) in unincorporated Hernando County, Florida. The property is also known as Parcel Identification Number R09-123-21-1110-00J0-0010. In broader geographic terms, the property lies just east of Interstate 75, west of U.S. Highway 301, and just west-southwest of Ridge Manor, a small community in Hernando County. The western boundary of the parcel is approximately 500 feet east of the River, a Class III Outstanding Florida Waterbody (OWF), which meanders through the area. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 302.700(9)(i)41. In November 1971, Respondent purchased his property and on a later undisclosed date built a residence. According to Department Exhibit 24, which is a letter authored by Respondent in 1987, he first began filling the floodplain on the western part of his land "probably" in 1971, or just after he purchased the property. Historical aerial photographs of the site indicate that sometime before 1984, he constructed a pond just north of his house, apparently to be used for fishing, and by 1992 he had constructed a second, smaller pond just south of the larger pond. On February 3, 1986, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) sent Respondent a Cease and Desist Order in the form of a letter in which it advised Respondent that he had placed a "considerable amount of fill material" in wetlands adjacent to the River; that such filling was in violation of the federal Clean Water Act of 1977; that legal action would be taken if further filling occurred; that he must reply within 15 days indicating that he had complied with the terms of the letter; and that within the same timeframe he must provide information concerning the public and/or private need for the work, the effects on the surrounding area, and any other relevant information. By letter dated March 12, 1986, Respondent responded to the Cease and Desist Order and stated that prior to 1977 the land had been changed from wetlands to usable farmland, that his land did not connect to the River, and that there were no natural waters on his property that connected to state or federal waters. A follow-up letter was sent by the Corps on February 26, 1987, in which the Corps advised Respondent that he could resolve the violation "by removing all unauthorized fill material" and restoring the area. He was also told that in lieu of doing this, he could file an application for an after- the-fact permit authorizing the filling. A copy of a Joint Application for Permit was attached to the letter. On March 7, 1987, Respondent replied to the Corps' letter and stated that his land did not connect with any other waterbody; that he had been filling his property since 1971 without objection by anyone; that he had a "hard time understanding all these rules and regulations"; and that he questioned why the Corps was causing him "so much trouble for the last couple of years." Respondent never filed an application for an after-the-fact permit nor did he receive a reply to his letter. After an "Unauthorized Wetland Alteration Field Investigation" was conducted by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) sometime in 1992, by letter dated November 3, 1992, the District advised Respondent that it appeared the "wetland in question was disturbed prior to October, 1984" and that any filling done before that date was exempt from its jurisdiction; that it appeared that other dredge/fill work had been performed on the same wetland since that date; that Respondent's claim that the area was being used for agricultural purposes was not supported by any evidence; that Respondent's activities constituted a violation of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes; and that all illegal activity must be ceased immediately. The disposition of further contacts between the District and Respondent, if any, are unknown. Against this backdrop, on August 16, 2002, the Department's Tampa District Office received a complaint from the District stating that Respondent had illegally filled wetlands on his property. (The record does not show why the District waited almost ten years to refer the complaint to the Department.) In response to that complaint, and as a precursor to issuing a formal notice of violation, on August 20, 2002, the Tampa district office sent Respondent a warning letter indicating that a violation "may exist on [his] property" and requesting that he contact the Department to arrange a meeting "to discuss this matter." By mutual agreement, an inspection of the property was scheduled for September 5, 2002. Because a Department representative became unavailable just before the inspection, the Department did not appear at the property on the scheduled date or notify Respondent that the inspection had been cancelled. The following day, September 6, 2002, Department personnel were in the area and appeared unannounced at Respondent's property. However, no one was home and they did not inspect the property. Several weeks later, Department personnel again visited the site but could not gain access. Because Respondent was unwilling to grant access to his property, on April 17, 2003, the Department obtained an inspection warrant from the Circuit Court in Hernando County authorizing an inspection of Respondent's property. On April 22, 2003, seven Department employees inspected the property. Based upon plant species and hydrological indicators found on the property, it was established that the northwestern corner of Respondent's property lay within the surface water floodplain of the River and constituted wetlands, as defined by Section 373.019(22), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-340.200(19). (The Department also established that there is a fifty percent chance of the filled area being flooded during any given year.) Therefore, any filling on that portion of Respondent's property would require a permit. Department records reflected that Respondent had never obtained a permit authorizing any work. During their inspection, Department representatives observed that a narrow strip of land totaling around 0.20 acres in the northwest corner of the parcel (just west of the larger fish pond) had been filled with concrete debris and sand to a height of around 6 or 7 feet in an effort to sever the connection between the River and the wetlands.5 Unless the berm is removed, the activity could lead to adverse cumulative impacts, including a loss in available habitat for floral and fauna that currently use the area, a loss in water storage capacity of the current system, and a loss in detritus formation and nutrient/pollution cycling. An Enforcement Inspection Report prepared after the inspection recommended that an enforcement action be initiated. On June 10, 2004, the Department issued its Notice alleging that Respondent had violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-343.050, which requires a permit to fill wetlands or surface waters, and Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which makes it unlawful to violate a Department rule. On August 12, 2004, Respondent filed his Petition challenging the Notice. In his Petition, Respondent denied that he owned the property on which the filling occurred; alleged that the property had been previously inspected in 1986 by the Corps; alleged that the District confirmed by letter in 1992 that the filling had occurred prior to 1984 and was therefore exempt from regulation; and alleged that he is entitled to "restitution" for damages caused by the Wysong Dam being rebuilt downstream from his property. At hearing, Respondent also suggested that the filled area was not wetlands. This proceeding followed. On November 17, 2004, the Department conducted a second inspection of Respondent's property. The objectives of that inspection were to determine the boundary of the filled area by Global Position Satellite equipment and to allow Eric D. Hickman, the new Environmental Manager who was not present during the first inspection, to perform a review of the property. Through ground reconnaissance and photo- interpretation, Mr. Hickman was able to establish the landward extent of the wetlands and other surface waters of the State. Based on vegetation, soils, and hydrologic indicators found on the site, he was able to confirm that the filled area on Respondent's property is wetlands. In fact, because of the overwhelming evidence of wetland indicators on the property (that is, the site conditions met nearly every single test criterion for a wetland), Mr. Hickman stated that he could make that determination with "100 percent certainty." Mr. Hickman concurred with the findings in the earlier inspection report, including one that the filled area is located entirely within a forested floodplain, which is both a surface water and a wetland due to regular flooding in the area for sustained periods of time. Photographs received in evidence, and testimony by Department representatives, confirm that the flooding occurs on a regular basis. See also Finding of Fact 13, supra. Significantly, Mr. Hickman observed that additional filling had occurred since the first inspection some eighteen months earlier, and that there were two signs on the front of his property reading "Needed Clean Fill." Finally, the location of two large cypress trees on the property suggested that an intact and mature floodplain existed before the alterations occurred. The filling poses a threat to the functions of the land, such as vegetation and habitat. Therefore, removal of the concrete debris and sand is necessary in order to restore those functions. While the Department would not promise that he could do so, it did represent that it would consider Respondent's request to remove the debris and sand to the upland area of his property, which would be much less expensive than hauling it offsite. At hearing, Respondent acknowledged that despite a warning by the Corps in 1986 that the filling was illegal, he has continued to engage in that activity for at least two reasons: to prevent flooding of his property and to prevent contaminated River water from reaching his fish ponds. He further acknowledged that as recently as 2003 he allowed several trucks to dump concrete debris and sand onto his property. (The concrete debris was obtained from a local Walmart store.) Respondent justified his actions in part on the ground that the Corps failed to respond to his letter in March 1987, and he assumed that this was an indication that the filling was legal. He also contended that the filled area was originally uplands when he purchased the property, but it changed to wetlands due to increased runoff from heavy development in the area and the construction of a dam downstream which caused the River to overflow during heavy rains. As a consequence, his property and others in the area (such as homes on Cyril Drive) have been prone to flooding. However, Mr. Hickman established that a floodplain existed on the property before any filling occurred. In any event, the Department has jurisdiction over both natural and artificial wetlands, and permits are needed for filling either type of wetland. Therefore, while the filling may have been performed for a salutary purpose, after 1984 he needed a permit to do so (assuming that such activities in a wetland are permittable). The fact that the land is zoned agricultural by Hernando County does not negate this requirement.5 Finally, a contention that a wetland is changed to uplands by merely placing dry dirt onto the wetland has been rejected. The land still remains a wetland for jurisdictional purposes. Respondent never filed for an after-the-fact permit (as suggested by the Corps in 1987) because it was too "complicated" to fill out the form. He conceded, however, that he did not ask the Department for assistance in doing so. Except for the explanations discussed above, Respondent presented no mitigating evidence. He has asked that due to his financial circumstances the amount of the fine be moderated or forgiven. At hearing, three Tampa District Office employees established that they spent a total of 70 hours of time on this case. At their hourly rate of pay, this totals $1,850.00 in investigative costs. In addition, Mr. Hickman was required to perform a wetland determination on the property. The normal charge for an assessment on a property of this size is $550.00. The reasonableness of these amounts was not disputed by Respondent. However, the Department is seeking reimbursement of only $500.00.
Findings Of Fact Hollingsworth is the owner and developer of property located adjacent to Santa Rosa Sound in Section 23, Township 2 South, Range 26 West, at approximately 30 degrees 24' North, 86 degrees 49' West, in the Navarre area of Santa Rosa County, Florida. In April, 1974, Hollingsworth submitted to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund an application for the construction by dredging and filling of a boat basin and access channel on and in Santa Rosa Sound adjacent to the property. In April, 1975, after learning that biological field reports recommended denial of a permit for the proposed construction, Hollingsworth withdrew his application and requested a refund of his application fee. The refund was granted. Thereafter, in approximately May, 1975, Hollingsworth commenced construction by dredging a dead-end canal (which he refers to as a "lake") and filling marsh, submerged land, and transitional zone of the submerged land on the property. No State permit was obtained for this construction. On February 24, 1977, DER issued its Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action. Hollingsworth's dredging activities have resulted in the construction of a canal which measures approximately 600 feet long and 50 feet wide. There was initially a small earthen plug of remaining shoreline approximately 12 feet wide interposed between the end of the canal and the waters at Santa Pose Sound, During the year 1975, the plug was breached by a ditch approximately 1 foot wide running between the end of the canal and the waters of Santa Rosa Sound. The ditch, when first observed by DER personnel, was of such configuration common to ditches that are manually dug. The ditch had vertical sides and uniform width and depth with piles of spoil aligned regularly alongside the ditch. In addition, a broken spade was observed in the vicinity of the ditch. There is now deep water at the interface of the canal and Santa Rosa Sound which is inconsistent with a natural washout of the land plug. The evidence presented as to the nature of the origin of the small ditch is circumstantial. When circumstantial evidence is relied on in a civil case, the particular inference relied on to establish the fact must outweigh all contrary inferences to such an extent as to amount to a preponderance of all reasonable inferences that might be drawn from the same circumstances. Busbee v. Quarrier, 172 So.2d 17 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). The application of this test to the facts, combined with the Hearing Officer's observation of the photographs of the ditch taken in June of 1975, constitute the basis for the Hearing Officer's finding of fact that DER has established a prima facie case that the ditch was man-made and not the result of natural causes. Between June, 1975, and December, 1976, the natural vegetation of the land plug was denuded and the surface graded by heavy machinery. Between December, 1976, and March, 1978, the land plug was virtually obliterated, thereby completely connecting Hollingsworth's canal with Santa Rosa Sound. The connection is the result of the overall dredging activities and not the result of natural causes. The canal is reasonably likely to be a source of pollution. Being a dead-end body of water, it has poor flushing and flow characteristics. Therefore, contaminants have little chance to move out. Previously, the natural marsh system, now destroyed, effectively filtered the contaminants. Now there is a high potential for accumulation of contaminants within the canal which would be aggravated by possible development of the environs. Hollingsworth, by depositing the spoil material from the canal dredging operation, has filled and destroyed a previously existing area of marsh, submerged land and transitional zone adjacent to Santa Rosa Sound which performed storm water run off filtration and other natural beneficial functions. This will cause contaminants and excessive nutrients from upland sources to be routed directly and with adverse effect into the waters of Santa Rosa Sound.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has a lease on a 160-acre tract of land along the northern boundary of Palm Beach County which has been zoned and used for several years to mine rock used in local road building operations. This tract of land is surrounded on the east, south and west by some 1,000 acres of land owned by Intervenor, Vanguard Farms. The Vanguard Farms property is used to grow citrus and sugarcane. The geology of the area in the vicinity of this application is such that some three feet of Everglades top soil overlies the limestone. The land surface is about fifteen (15) feet NGVD and the water level table fluctuates from twelve (12) to fourteen (14) feet NGVD for the dry and wet seasons. The Vanguard Farms property, which surrounds Petitioner's property in Palm Beach County, is a wet area bordered on the west by Lake Okeechobee and on the east by high ground water elevation. The area has an excess of rainfall over evapotranspiration and excess water will always be generated. In order to render Vanguard Farms arable it is necessary to drain the property and pump excess water from the land. The existing rock pit is some 6.7 acres in area. In order to economically mine rock from this pit it is necessary to remove stable overburden and expose the limerock to provide a stable platform on which the mining equipment can be operated. Since the water table is generally above the top of this limerock, it is necessary to remove water from the pit to expose the rock to be quarried. During earlier operations water from the pit dewatering was pumped into a canal which flowed onto intervenor's property. In the application now under consideration, no water from the dewatering operation will be pumped off the 160 acres controlled by Petitioner. A 25-acre holding pond has been constructed on this site as well as a 9-acre overflow pond. The holding pond was constructed by piling the overburden, and possibly some limerock, in a rectangular shape some ten feet above the surface (25 feet NGVD). This material with which this 10-foot high levee is formed was excavated with a dragline and shaped with a tractor. Condition 28, of the conditions proposed by Respondent for the grant of this application, requires all dikes, levees and berms behind which water is to be retained to be inspected for structural adequacy. A report of such inspection and steps necessary to correct the deficiencies noted shall be submitted, and the report is to be signed and sealed by a Florida registered professional engineer. Perimeter ditches on the north, south and east sides of Petitioner's lands will intercept seepage from the retention pond and surface waters flowing onto this property. These perimeter ditches are connected to the rock pit to which such waters will flow. Water moving westward across the property will be intercepted by the rock pit. Without the rock pit excess water generated in this area will flow onto Vanguard's adjacent land. This condition will exist when the pit is not in operation. However, when the pit is in operation, the water will be retained on Petitioner's property by those limiting conditions requiring the maintenance of water level elevation in the perimeter ditch to be kept either equal to or below the water level elevation of Vanguard Farms. Under this condition, all water will be routed between the pit and retention pond. Conditions of the permit which Respondent proposes to issue include that the water level in the retention pond not exceed 18.5 feet NGVD, that the holding pond be interconnected with the overflow pond, that the water level in the perimeter ditches be maintained by use of a flashboard riser at 10.8 feet NGVD, that dewatering operations cease upon notification by District staff of any adjacent property owners experiencing water-related problems, and that a direct connection between holding pond and rock pit be established for emergency discharge of water from the holding pond back into the rock pit.
Findings Of Fact Parties Respondent Sun East is a corporation who seeks to create a Planned Unit Development, PUD 89-25, on its property located in Polk County, Florida. Petitioner Hirt owns and resides on property adjacent to the Planned Unit Development. The only geographical boundary between the proposed project and Petitioner's property is Watkins Road. Respondent SWFWMD is the water management district with permitting authority over the 5.36 acres involved in the permit application which is the subject of these proceedings. Jurisdictional Areas of Controversy Respondent Sun East began the application process for a surface water management general construction permit from SWFWMD for Phase I of its proposed development of PUD 89-25 on July 1, 1991. SWFWMD determined the application was complete on July 24, 1991. The permit which was issued the next day authorized Respondent Sun East to perform the work outlined in the permit and shown by the application, approved drawings, plans, and other documents on file with SWFWMD. Petitioner Hirt timely filed a formal administrative complaint in which he disputed the appropriateness of the permit issued. In support of his position, Petitioner identified a number of areas of controversy and alleged that the application and review process was insufficient. Petitioner's allegations in his complaint, which are properly before the Hearing Officer, are as follows: The approved surface water management system will cause surface water runoff from the project to flood Petitioner's property. One potential cause of such anticipated flooding is the lack of proper percolation design in the surface water management storage areas. Contrary to permit representations, the property and the retention pond required by SWFWMD are in the 100 year flood plain. The project is in an environmentally sensitive area. Respondent Sun East has neither complied with all local requirements nor obtained all necessary federal, state, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any construction authorized by the permit. Site Information The parcel of land on which the project will be located lies partially within the geographical limits of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The remaining land lies within the boundaries of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Originally, SFWMD gave Respondent Sun East a permit to construct Phase I of the project, along with conceptual approval for Phase II. The decision by Sun East to file the application for a surface water management general construction permit with SFWMD instead of SWFWMD was based upon advice from personnel at SWFWMD. When it was later determined that SWFWMD would need to review an application for Phase I in order for the project to be properly permitted, SWFWMD acted quickly to reduce any potential delay to the project which could be attributed to its prior incorrect jurisdictional analysis. The agency's efforts were unrelated to any political connections or family relationships the former landowner, Jack Watkins, may have with past or current members of the Florida Legislature or Congress. The grading plan for Phase I of the project coupled with the pre- development and post-development 25 year storm event analysis, assessed drainage concerns associated with Phase I of the PUD. Water flow analysis for the site that considered existing conditions and proposed improvements, demonstrates that the property west of Watkins Road is not part of the surface water management system for this project. The cross drain beneath Watkins Road to the south of the proposed project deals with a different, natural conveyance system to Lake Pierce which is utilized by property owners such as Petitioner Hirt on the east side of the roadway. The proposed surface water management system for Phase I will not affect the drainage conveyance system utilized by property owners on the east side of Watkins Road. The stormwater management collection and conveyance system for Phase I was designed to convey the stormwater runoff from a 25 year 24-hour rainfall event, as required. It was not overdesigned to deal with a more intense, longer rainfall or storm event. Essentially, stormwater treatment and attenuation will be provided by the two proposed detention ponds A & B, as depicted on the site plan. Runoff from the first inch of rainfall will be filtered through a proposed side berm filter system in Pond A. The Polk County Soil Survey and field observations were used to assist in the weir control structure design. The weir was designed to restrict the post-development 25 year discharge to the pre-developed 25 year runoff rate. The project does not rely on percolation to offset post-development changes in the surface water management system design. As a result, percolation rates are not a factor to be dealt with in a design review. Flood Plain The 100 year elevation of 79 feet above mean sea level delineates the 100 year flood plain on the property in Phase I. According to the contour map, the existing Ponds 1 and 2 have depression contours below the flood plain. The water level in Existing Pond 1 is 78.24 feet. The water level in Existing Pond 2 is 78.14 feet. These ponds are not a major or significant part of an existing, natural surface water storage system in the area. They are just minor surface depressions. None of the lots contained in Phase I encroach upon the 100 year flood plain level. Environmental Concerns The parties stipulated at hearing that SWFWMD rule criteria relating to wetland and natural resource impacts were met by Sun East's general surface water management permit application. Local Requirements Prior to making application to SWFWMD for a permit in this case, Respondent Sun East obtained approval for Phase I of PUD 89-25 from Polk County. Since that time, the zoning approval was quashed by the circuit court. Respondent Sun East was ordered to obtain the SWFWMD permit before reapplying for zoning approval. The limiting conditions which are part of the permit issued by SWFWMD state: The permittee shall comply with all applicable local subdivision regulations and other local requirements. In addition the permittee shall obtain all necessary Federal, State, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any construction or alteration of works authorized by this permit. The permit limiting conditions do not require that all other permits be acquired prior to the application for this permit. Instead, the limiting conditions advise that all other necessary permits must be acquired prior to construction or alteration of works begun pursuant to this permit. Petitioner began construction authorized by the permit after SWFWMD issued its permit approval on July 25, 1991. The Petitions for Certiorari on the final approval for Phase I from Polk County was already filed when the application for a permit from SWFWMD was requested by Sun East. The completed application does not reflect that the Polk County zoning approval was being challenged, and SWFWMD was not made aware of the possibility that it could be overturned at a later date. The permit issued by SWFWMD was timely challenged by Petitioner, before the approval became final agency action. Sun East did not comply with the limiting condition in the permit that requires a permittee to obtain all necessary authorizations prior to construction as the zoning approval was still unsettled when construction began. Petitioner's challenge to the SWFWMD permit was filed in good faith as numerous disputes of fact existed regarding this permit prior to resolution in this Recommended Order. Based upon the information and documentation given to Petitioner when the permit was issued, it reasonably appeared that his substantial interests were affected by the proposed drainage plan associated with the development.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That SWFWMD issue the general construction permit for the surface water management system for Phase I, within the limits indicated in the intent to issue, subject to conditions contained therein. That SWFWMD initiate an inspection of the stormwater management system at its expense to ensure conformity with the approved plans and specifications. That appropriate action be taken under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, to prevent the continued violation of the limiting condition in the permit relating to construction starts. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of March, 1992, 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 24th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5689 Joint Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Respondents are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #20. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #19. Accepted. See HO #19. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #25. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #28. COPIES FURNISHED: ROBERT PERSANTE ESQ MERKLE & MAGRI 7650 W COURTNEY CAMPBELL CAUSEWAY - STE 1120 TAMPA FL 33607 ANDREW R REILLY ESQ REILLY & LASSEIGNE PO BOX 2039 HAINES CITY FL 33845 EDWARD B HELVENSTON ESQ DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL SOUTHWEST FL WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2379 BROAD ST BROOKSVILLE FL 34609 6899 PETER G HUBBELL/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SOUTHWEST FL WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2379 BROAD ST BROOKSVILLE FL 34609 6899 CAROL BROWNER/SECRETARY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BLDG 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted No Notice General Environmental Resource Permits for Lots 61, 245, and 247 within Unit of Development 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, pursuant to permitting criteria of Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, Chapters 40E-40 and 40E-400, Florida Administrative Code, and the South Florida Water Management District's "Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District--November 1996."
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Royal Palm Beach Colony (Royal Palm), is a limited partnership registered and authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), is a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. Intervenor, 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., is a not- for-profit, tax exempt membership corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Intervenor, Indian Trail Improvement District (ITID), is a special district of the State of Florida established by special act of the Legislature, Chapter 57-646, Laws of Florida, and operating pursuant to applicable provisions of Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, as well as special acts of the Legislature. Royal Palm owns approximately 171 lots within Unit of Development 11 of ITID (Unit 11) in Palm Beach County, Florida. Each lot is approximately 1.25 acres. Not all of the lots owned by Royal Palm in Unit 11 are contiguous. Unit 11 is a rural subdivision within ITID, in which there are numerous private property owners. The property of Royal Palm that is the subject of dispute is comprised of three lots, Lots 61, 245, and 247. Unit 11 is within the C-18 Basin. Prior to the construction of the C-18 Canal, the area was typically drained by sheet flow to the north. Because of the flat topography, the drainage in the C-18 Basin is poor; therefore, following periods of heavy rainfall much of the land is inundated. Unit 11 contains an extensive amount of wetlands. There are currently no habitable structures within Unit 11. It consists of vacant lots with an interconnected network of roads, canals, and roadside swales. On August 15, 1975, SFWMD's predecessor, The Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, issued ITID a surface water management permit, Permit No. 50-00136-S (the 1975 permit) for construction and operation of a surface water management system serving Unit 11. The permit authorizes discharge from Unit 11 to the west leg of the C-18 canal via three culverts. In 1988, SFWMD undertook a comprehensive examination of the C-18 Basin, which resulted in a publication entitled "Technical Publication 88-11, Flood Management Study of the C- 18 Basin, August, 1988." The study documented that the western leg of the C-18 canal lacked capacity to accept the permitted discharge from Unit 11. SFWMD determined that the development of Unit 11's flood control and water quantity management system according to Permit No. 50-00136-S would be inconsistent with the overall objectives of SFWMD, harmful to the water resources and the public's health, safety, and welfare, and to the policies and purposes of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and not in the best interest of future residents of Unit 11. SFWMD and ITID entered into a consent agreement concerning Unit 11 on July 7, 1989 (the Consent Agreement). SFWMD and ITID agreed that ITID would apply for, process, and obtain a modification of Permit No. 50-00136-S to address and resolve SFWMD's flooding and water quality concerns. In addition, ITID was to construct the surface water management system authorized in the permit modification in accordance with the terms of the permit. ITID received a permit from SFWMD in 1990 authorizing modifications to the surface water management system in order to address the issues identified in the Consent Agreement, namely potential flooding of homes constructed for future residents of Unit 11. The improvements approved in the 1990 permit were never implemented, and the permit expired. In 1992, ITID proposed a different modification to the surface water management system that proposed an impoundment for retention of stormwater. The permit application was recommended for denial by SFWMD staff, but has never been presented to the SFWMD Governing Board for final agency action. The problems regarding the water quality and flooding problems set forth in the Consent Agreement have not been remedied. On December 4, 1997, Royal Palm obtained variances from the Palm Beach County Health Department (the Health Department), granting Royal Palm the right under certain specified conditions to construct on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTD Systems) on Lots 61, 245, and 247. Originally, the Health Department had denied Royal Palm's request for permission to construct the OSTD Systems on lots 61, 245, and 247 on the grounds that the lots were located in an area subject to frequent flooding and the drainage in the subdivision had not been constructed in accordance with SFWMD's requirements. Subsequent to the granting of the variance, Royal Palm revised its site plans for the three lots, and those revised plans have not been reviewed by the Health Department for compliance with applicable rules. On March 19, 1998, Royal Palm notified SFWMD that Royal Palm was entitled to a No Notice General Permit (NNGP) for Lots 61, 245, and 247 for activities in uplands pursuant to Rule 40E-400.315, Florida Administrative Code. On April 9, 1998, SFWMD issued its agency action by letter that informed Royal Palm that SFWMD staff had determined that the three lots did not qualify for a NNGP. The letter stated the reasons for denial as follows: Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that the proposed system or project is not part of a larger common plan of development. See Rule 40E- 400.315(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code. Royal Palm Colony is the owner of approximately 170 lots within Unit 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, and the three proposed lots appear to be merely part of this large common plan of development. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system with use of septic systems and the associated lack of water quality treatment will not cause pollution in violation of water quality standards. See Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e), and 40E-400.215(11), Fla. Admin. Code. There is not a viable or functioning stormwater management system in place or proposed to provide reasonable assurance that the septic systems would properly function. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, including, but not limited to, significant interference with the construction and operation of a regional stormwater system needed for adequate flood protection and stormwater treatment in the Unit 11 area. See Rule 40E-400.301(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause water quality impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. See Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(a), Fla. Admin. Code. The proposed project adds impervious area and eliminates water storage. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse flooding to on-site and or/or (sic) off-site properties. See Rule 40E- 4.301(10)(b), Fla. Admin. Code. The proposed project adds impervious area and eliminates water storage. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. See Rule 40E-4.301(10)(c), Fla. Admin. Code. The proposed project adds impervious area and eliminates water storage. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species and other surface waters. See Rule 40-4.301(1)(d), Fla. Admin. Code. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that the proposed system or project is capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed. See Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(i), Fla. Admin. Code. On April 23, 1998, Royal Palm filed its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the clerk of SFWMD, initiating this proceeding. Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, is intended to authorize only very minor activities that have no potential to cause harm to water resources. Because the NNGP is issued by rule, SFWMD does not typically review projects that are conducted pursuant to a NNGP. A NNGP does not authorize projects that are part of a common plan of development or sale. In determining whether an activity is within a larger common plan of development, SFWMD staff look to see whether the project has shared infrastructure that facilitates development, such as canals, swales, and roads. A surface water management is in place in Unit 11. It consists of roads, swales, and drainage canals. The system drains to the C-18 canal via three culverts. The system was put into place as a result of the issuance of the 1975 permit, but there have been no modifications to the system as required by the Consent Agreement. During the last ten years ITID has done minimal maintenance to the system. A common road network within Unit 11 provides access to each of the three lots. The lots will depend on the swales and drainage canals as part of overall stormwater management system that serves Unit 11. Unit 11 is a common plan of development. Accordingly, the activities proposed by Royal Palm, filling in order to construct three single family houses with driveways, mounded septic tank systems, and wells within Unit 11 are not authorized pursuant to a NNGP. Royal Palm's predecessor company originally owned all the lots in Unit 11. Royal Palm is presently liquidating its assets. Royal Palm selected the three lots at issue in this case for permitting for individual homes because the lots represented a good overview of the different types of Royal Palm's holdings in the area. If Royal Palm is able to build homes on the three lots and depending on the market conditions and other outside factors, Royal Palm will make a decision on how to liquidate the other 168 lots in Unit 11. It is anticipated that the construction of the homes on the lots at issue will involve placement of fill. Land development, including the placement of fill, displaces stormwater that would, on a property in its natural condition, pond on the surface or soak into the ground. In order to determine whether a project complies with the flood protection criteria, SFWMD staff must consider the effect the proposed land development has off-site, and the effects surrounding lands may have on the lot to be developed. The flood routing calculations provided by Royal Palm in its application did not provide any analysis of how discharges from surrounding properties would affect the performance of the surface water management systems constructed on the lots at issue. Nor did Royal Palm address the potential for flooding of off-site properties by stormwater displaced by fill and impervious areas that are contemplated on Lots 61, 245, and 247. The three lots are not hydrologically separate from the remainder of Unit 11. Royal Palm's failure to include a detailed analysis of the surrounding area also precluded SFWMD from making a determination as to the impacts of the proposed activities upon existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. The proposed projects are single family houses. It is reasonable to expect that some discharge of untreated stormwater runoff from the system directly into wetlands and other surface water will occur. For Lots 245, 247, and 61, the proposed stormwater management system includes a dry detention area. Considering the topographic information for this site, part of the runoff from the fill area will not flow into the dry detention area but will flow untreated directly into wetlands and other surface waters. The runoff could reasonably be expected to include oils, grease, and petroleum from the driveway area and herbicide and pesticides from the yard area. The untreated runoff could pose an adverse impact. Development adjacent to wetlands has the potential to disrupt the usage of those wetlands by wildlife. Section 4.2.7 of the Basis of Review provides that secondary impacts to the habitat functions of wetlands associated with adjacent upland activities are not considered adverse if buffers with a minimum width of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet are provided abutting those wetlands. In certain circumstances, additional measures are necessary. The Basis of Review provides that buffers must be in undisturbed condition, except that drainage features can be located in the buffer if their construction and operation will not negatively impact the wetlands. The design drawings for Lots 245 and 247 demonstrate that the buffers are not undisturbed because fill will be placed in the buffer areas. There is no treatment system in place for the roads in Unit 11; thus, there is a potential for untreated runoff from the roads, which could contain oils, grease, and petroleum constituents, to reach wetlands or surface waters. The roads in Unit 11 are sometimes under water and will require increased maintenance to correct erosion from increased vehicular traffic. Road maintenance and grading present the potential to discharge sediment laden water into adjacent wetlands. This threat is particularly great in Unit 11 because many of the roads go directly through wetlands. The engineering calculations submitted by Royal Palm anticipate that the elevation of the roads will be raised. Raising the elevations will require additional fill, and because several roads in Unit 11 go through wetlands, additional filling of wetlands can be anticipated. Section 6.9(a) of the Basis of Review, requires that residential projects must have the calculated ability to discharge a sufficient volume of stormwater such that the system can return to the control elevation within 12 days of a design storm event. Royal Palm failed to provide information demonstrating that the storage volume provided by the systems proposed for the three lots can be recovered and therefore available for subsequent storm events. Without an adequate understanding of the functioning of the overall surface stormwater management system in Unit 11, it is impossible to determine the amount of time necessary for the systems on the three lots to bleed down to control elevation. In order to allow access to the three lots from the roads, fill must be placed in the roadside swales. Because the elevation of the roadside swales is below the seasonal high water table, they are defined as other surface waters. The swales are depressional areas that support an abundance of obligate wetland vegetation; thus, they are encompassed within the definition of jurisdictional wetlands. Thus, the project will involve direct impacts to wetlands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Royal Palm Beach Colony, L.P.'s application for No Notice General Permits for Lots 61, 245, and 237. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel H. Poole, III, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Teresa J. Moore, Esquire Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive Suite 300 East West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 1000 Friends of Florida Post Office Box 5948 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles F. Schoesch, Esquire Caldwell & Pacetti 234 Royal Palm Way, Suite 300 Palm Beach, Florida 33480
