Findings Of Fact Respondent/applicant, James L. Carpenter (applicant or Carpenter), is the owner of upland property bordering on and contiguous to a man-made lagoon in Vaca Key near Marathon, Florida. The property is also adjacent to an artificial man-made canal which connects the lagoon to the open waters of Florida Bay. The lagoon and canal are classified as Class III waters of the State while Florida Bay is a Class III Outstanding Florida Water. A more precise location of the property is Section 9, Township 66 South, Range 32 East, Monroe County, Florida. By application dated June 23, 1987 applicant sought the issuance of a dredge and fill permit from respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), authorizing the construction of an "L" shaped 125'x8' commercial dock with a 10'x8' access walkway waterward of mean high water (MHW) in the canal. The dock and walkway will be located on the property described in finding of fact 1. According to the application, Carpenter owns several "landlocked residences" in the vicinity of the proposed dock and desires to provide dockage for residents who rent his houses. Because of DER concerns that shading might affect photosynthetic capabilities in the vicinity of the project, applicant agreed to revise his application. This revision was made on December 21, 1987 and reduced the dock size to 102'x6' while the access walkway was increased slightly to 12'x8'. Thus, the dock will extend eight feet into the canal beyond the MHW. On January 5, 1988 DER's district office issued an Intent to Issue a permit subject to seven specific conditions incorporated in the permit. This prompted the filing of a petition by petitioner, Lillian Berdeal (Berdeal), who owns upland property bordering on and contiguous to the lagoon, canal and Florida Bay. She operates a commercial seafood business directly across the canal from Carpenter. According to her petition, Berdeal asserts that Carpenter's dock would adversely affect navigation in the canal and the health, safety and welfare or the property of others. The water body in question is a man-made canal facing to the north and providing an outlet for the lagoon to Florida Bay. The lagoon, which measures approximately 150'x100', is fairly well developed. On the east and southeast side of the lagoon lie an outdoor restaurant and Carpenter's boat rental business. Petitioner's seafood processing operation lies on the west and southwest sides of the lagoon and lagoon entrance. Photographs of the area have been received in evidence as DER exhibits 1 and 2 and petitioner's exhibit 1. Presently, there are five finger piers (docks) in front of Berdeal's property at the narrowest point of the canal. These piers are directly across the canal from Carpenter's proposed dock addition. They extend out eight feet perpendicular to the shoreline and are now used by commercial fishermen for docking purposes while using Berdeal's facility. Approximately thirty or forty boats use the finger piers during fishing season (August - May) while up to twenty may use them in the off-season (June - July). Berdeal described those boats as ranging from thirty to forty-five feet in length and having beams up to, but not exceeding, sixteen feet. However, vessels at petitioner's facility on the day of DER's inspection had an average beam of ten feet. The evidence is conflicting as to the canal's width at its most narrow point. According to DER's expert, the minimum width is seventy-six feet, and this figure is accepted as being more credible than Berdeal's own measurement of sixty-three feet. If the project is constructed, Carpenter's dock, together with a boat having a ten foot beam, would use around eighteen feet of the channel at its most narrow width while Berdeal's facility, if used by the largest boat, would take up another twenty-three feet. This would still leave around thirty-five feet of channel for navigation purposes between the two docks at the canal's most narrow point. According to applicant's expert in navigation, James J. Morrison, who has piloted boats in the area for over thirty years, a boat may safely operate in the canal if it has five feet of water on each side. This margin of safety is sufficient in all weather conditions up to and including a small craft warning. If the project is approved, the necessary margin of safety would be available. It is noted also that there are no significant currents in the canal that would adversely affect navigation, and under normal weather conditions, the canal and basin are easily navigable. Petitioner presented the testimony of a commercial fisherman, Leonard Quasney, who expressed concerns that northerly winds periodically drive aquatic weeds and grasses into the lagoon and canal thereby impairing the ability of a boat to safely operate. These weeds are shown in photographs received as petitioner's exhibit 1. It was Quasney's contention that, coupled with the periodic influx of weeds, the addition of a dock at the canal's most narrow point will make navigation more hazardous. However, this theory was discounted by expert witness Morrison who pointed out that, while it is true that floating mats of weeds affect the ability of a person to handle a boat by making the boat's rudder and propeller action less responsive, they do not affect the ability to navigate the canal. In other words, as long as the margin of safety is available in the canal, the presence of the weeds would not hinder a ship's ability to enter and exit the lagoon. This testimony is accepted as being more credible on the issue, and it is found that the new dock will not create a navigational hazard as a result of the weeds. Berdeal is concerned also that the new dock would make it more difficult for fishermen to access her property and therefore cause economic harm to both her and the fishermen. However, this contention was not substantiated. The parties have stipulated that, with the following special conditions proposed by DER at hearing regarding limitations on commercial use, liveaboards and scraping boat bottoms, all water quality standards will be met: All temporary and permanent use of liveaboard or liveaboard type vessels for residential use is prohibited. All on site fueling activities are prohibited. All major vessel repair, such as hull scraping and painting, with the boat in the water is prohibited. Only private use of the dock is permitted. All double parking or rafting of boats along the dock is prohibited. General conditions common to all dredge and fill permits. The parties have stipulated that the "public interest" criteria in Subsection 403.918(2)(a)2. and 4.-7., Florida Statutes (1987), have been satisfied. In addition, a registered engineer has certified that the dock's construction and use will not have an adverse effect on the public health, safety and welfare or the property of others. Petitioner has applied for the issuance of a permit allowing the construction of additional docks at her facility. If the application is approved, these docks will be used for commercial purposes. The proposed impact of this project, and its cumulative impact on the area, was considered by DER in its evaluation of Carpenter's application. However, conditions to be included in Berdeal's permit will minimize any water quality or navigation impacts of the project, even on a cumulative basis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of James L. Carpenter for a dredge and fill permit be granted subject to those specific, special and general conditions imposed by the agency. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has an option to purchase property located at 301-307 Island Way Boulevard, Island Estate, Clearwater, Florida, on which he proposes to construct ten townhouses. Initially Petitioner asked for two variances. The first variance was for 25.12 feet to allow construction on a lot only 124.88 feet wide. This variance was granted for this nonconforming lot. The second variance, for 13.24 feet to allow construction of the ten townhouse complex 12 feet from the side property line, was denied by the Clearwater Code Adjustment Board. The Board concluded the variance requested did not meet the requirements of Section 45.24 of the Clearwater Land Development Code. Petitioner presented evidence that if the lot had been 150 feet wide they would have had 90 feet to build on without requesting any variance. However, since the lot was nonconforming, in order to have 89 feet on which to place the building, the requested variance would be necessary. Petitioner also presented evidence that the construction of ten townhouses on this lot is necessary for the project to be on a solid economic basis. Subsequent to the denial of this variance by the Development Code Adjustment Board, Petitioner submitted plans, which have been approved by the City of Clearwater, to erect nine townhouses on this property without any variance needed. However, these townhouses would be smaller than would be the ten townhouses initially proposed and would provide a lesser return on the capital invested.
Findings Of Fact On January 27, 1987, petitioner, Vincent M. Drost, filed an application with respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department), for a permit/water quality certification to construct 24,155 linear feet of vertical bulkhead (90 degrees to horizontal) in manmade residential canals and along the Atlantic Ocean waterfront (Bow Channel and Cudjoe Bay), in Cudjoe Gardens Subdivision, Monroe County, Florida. The subject waters are Class III, Outstanding Florida Waters. 1/ On August 12, 1987, the Department issued its intent to deny petitioner's application with respect to the northernmost canal, which is abutted on the north and west by lots 1-18 and a portion of lot 19; the second most northern canal, which is abutted on the north and west, south of Second Avenue West, by lots 1-10; and along the southern and western shoreline of the Atlantic Ocean. The predicate for the Department's decision was Section 403.918(5)(b), Florida Statutes, which, pertinent to this case, prohibits the installation of vertical seawalls in lagoons unless within existing canals that are currently occupied in whole or in part by vertical seawalls, and the provisions of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, which prohibits such activities in Outstanding Florida Waters unless the project is clearly in the public interest. The Department exempted, however, the remainder of petitioner's project predicated on the fact that such canals were currently occupied in part by vertical seawalls. Petitioner filed a timely protest of the Department's intent to deny, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing. In light of the Department's exemption of a majority of the project, the parties have agreed that only that portion of petitioner's application which seeks a permit to bulkhead within the two northernmost canals and along the shoreline, approximately 8,000 linear feet, is at issue in this proceeding. Background In 1957, petitioner began the acquisition of certain lands lying south of U.S. Highway 1, Cudjoe Key, Monroe County, Florida. Over the years, petitioner added to his holdings, which he subdivided and platted as Cudjoe Gardens Subdivision. Petitioner's exhibit 6, a copy of which is attached hereto as appendix 2, depicts the subdivision and canal system which petitioner ultimately created as it exists today. In 1969, when petitioner prepared his proposed plans for dredging the canal system for the lands pertinent to this case, which lie west of Drost Drive in the subdivision, the state did not regulate dredge and fill work on privately owned uplands. Rather, a permit was only necessary to open the canal system to navigable waters. In June 1969, petitioner applied to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) for a permit to dredge a 60 foot wide and 3,000 foot long "canal" along the western and southern shore of the subject lands. Petitioner proposed to dredge to a depth of -15 feet mean low water (MLW) and represented that the area of the proposed "canal" was dry at low tide. In September 1969, petitioner revised his application and withdrew his request to dredge the "canal" as originally proposed. As revised, petitioner proposed to dredge the "canal" predominately from uplands, for which no permit was required and requested a permit to dredge 9,722 cubic yards of material from a 75 foot wide, 175 foot long, and 20 foot deep area to create an access channel for the proposed shoreline "canal", and to fill approximately 0.48 acres of submerged land adjacent to the proposed "canal." In December 1969, petitioner's revised application was approved, and a permit issued to perform the requested work in navigable waters of the state. Following receipt of the aforesaid permit, petitioner dredged the shoreline "canal" and the access channel, which currently abuts the southern and western shorelines of petitioner's property. While he avers that the shoreline "canal" was dredged entirely from uplands, the proof demonstrates that, at least in part, it was dredged from lands lying waterward of the natural ordinary or mean high water mark, and that the upper edges of its sides are normally below water. From 1972 through mid-1976, petitioner was prohibited from further development of his canal system because of a rule change which required approval of the complete canal system rather than just the opening of the system to navigable water. During this period, the Department and petitioner reached agreement on an acceptable manner in which the canal system could be completed, and on July 19, 1976, petitioner received his permit. The permit authorized petitioner to do the following: To dredge 75,500 cubic yards of upland material to create approximately & 2,450 feet of canals (approximately 600 feet to -12 feet mean low water, 450 feet to -8 feet mean low water, and 400 feet of tapered culvert) in order to convert a dead-end canal system into a flow-through system; ... to remove existing plug; ... and spoil to be deposited on adjacent upland. and, contained the following pertinent conditions: GENERAL CONDITIONS: ...the work authorized by this Permit shall be valid for a three (3) year period that shall commence upon receipt by the Permittee of all government authorizations, state and federal.... * * * PARTICULAR CONDITIONS: 3. The culvert under Drost Drive will be 10 feet wide and at a depth essentially equal to that of the connected canals. * * * 5. All culvert approaches shall be flared to smoothly connect to the canals. * * * 7. The plug shall remain intact until all upland excavation has been completed and any siltation has subsided. Petitioner completed the improvements contemplated by the Department's permit in December 1980. Pertinent to this case, the northern most canal was connected by a 10 foot wide culvert under Drost Drive to an existing canal on the east to provide a flow-through system. Prior to removing the plug from the canal system, petitioner completed all upland excavation of the interior lots which consisted of scraping all mud or soft ground from the edge of the canal back a distance of approximately 20 feet. Additionally, petitioner scrapped the ground back from the edge of the shoreline a distance of 2-10 feet. Petitioner contemplated that the caprock at the edge of the canals and shoreline would be capped with a vertical seawall and a concrete patio constructed over the remaining area. 2/ While such occurred on lots abutting other canals and a few lots abutting the subject shoreline, no such construction has occurred in the two northernmost canals. 3/ In reaching the conclusion that no vertical seawall exists in the northernmost canal west of Drost Drive, I have not overlooked the fact that such canal is connected hydraulically to the canal east of Drost Drive, and that the canal east of Drost Drive does contain vertical seawalls. However, I find compelling the fact that the canal west of Drost Drive was constructed long after the canal east of Drost Drive and that they are connected by a culvert, which runs under Drost Drive, that is significantly narrower than the canals. Under the circumstances, while they may be part of the same canal system, they are separate canals. I have, likewise, not overlooked the fact that the southerly edge of lot 19 is bulkhead. I find, however, that the natural extent of the northernmost canal is abutted on the north and west by lots 1-18 and that portion of lot 19 that is rip-rapped, and that no vertical seawalls exist within that canal. Environmental Concerns The proof demonstrates that along the southern and western shoreline there exists a littoral shelf that varies from 2-10 feet landward of the channel, and that is submerged at a depth of 2-6 inches at mean high water (MHW). Upon this shelf is a dense growth of sea grass and algae, followed landward by jurisdictional species such as mangroves, buttonwoods, and sea daisies. These species provide habitats for wildlife, water quality filtration functions, and food to lower organisms in the food chain. The vertical seawalls proposed by petitioner along the southern and western shoreline would have a direct adverse impact on fish and wildlife, their habitats, and marine productivity. The destruction of the intertidal vegetation where the seawalls would be replaced and the total isolation of the remaining wetland vegetation located landward of the seawalls, would prevent those species from providing their traditional wetland values. Within the two northern most canals, the exposed caprock abutting the canals is at or above mean sea level (MSL) in most cases. The Department offered credible proof, however, that a narrow littoral shelf exists along both canals which supports vegetation similar to that found along the southern and western shorelines. Additionally, the Department demonstrated that portions of the shoreline within the canals, where the caprock has been exposed, is saturated by natural tidal action at a frequency and duration adequate to support mangroves or other wetland species. In most case, however, this growth has been minimized by petitioner's mowing of the shelf area. Petitioner offered no competent proof to rebut the Department's showing that the project is subject to its jurisdiction. While construction of the proposed seawalls would not violate existing water quality standards, impede navigation or affect flood control, it would adversely impact the fish and wildlife, their habitats, and marine productivity within the canals. The marine life within these canals are very productive, due in no small measure to the design characteristics adopted by petitioner. Currently, lobster, crab, mollasks, and a healthy array of organisms populate the interior canals in question. There has been no credible showing that the existing waterways are experiencing harmful erosion. Upon consideration of the various criteria established by Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, it is found that the applicant has failed to establish that the project is not contrary to the public interest, as well as the more stringent standard that the project is clearly in the public interest. As part of his proposal, petitioner agreed that no mangroves would be disturbed, and that any capping would be done in a manner to assure their survival. The preservation of existing wetland areas alone is not, however, sufficient to compensate for the wetland areas to be lost. A lagoon Respondent contends that the waters abutting the shoreline of petitioner's property are considered a lagoon. A "lagoon" is defined by Section 403.911(5), Florida Statutes, as: . . . a naturally existing coastal zone depression which is below mean high water and which has permanent or ephemeral communication with the sea, but is protected from the sea by some type of natural existing barrier. In the opinion of Janet Llewellyn, accepted as an expert in oceanography, the waters abutting the petitioner's shoreline are within a lagoon that extends from the shoreline to a naturally existing barrier reef to the south. Petitioner offered no contrary proof. Under the circumstances, the opinion of Ms. Llewellyn is credited. Although the interior canals are artificially created waterways that were totally dredged on privately owned upland, and the waters of those canals never overlapped natural surface waters of the state before the plug was pulled, the opening of the canals to the abutting waters extended the lagoonal waters into the canals.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the application be denied. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of September, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1988.
Findings Of Fact At all times to the issues herein the Department of Environmental Protection was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation of water pollution and the issuance of dredge and fill permits in the specified waters of this state. Mr. Byrd has been a resident of the City of Treasure Island, Florida for many years and resides at 123 123rd Avenue in that city. His property is located on Boca Ciega Bay next to a public boat ramp operated by the City. On April 12, 1995, the City of Treasure Island applied to the Department of Environmental Protection for a permit to construct a dock six feet wide by seventy-five feet long, located on the edge of its property on which the public boat ramp is located. This property is located in a basin off Boca Ciega Bay, which is classified as a Class III Outstanding Florida Water. The dock involves the placement of pilings in the water, and the construction of a walkway thereon. In order to be obtain a permit, the applicant must provide the Department with reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not degrade water quality and will be in the public interest. The project is permanent in nature, but the temporary concerns raised by construction have been properly addressed in the permit. In the instant case, the dock is intended to accommodate the boating public which will utilize it to more safely launch, board, debark, and recover small boats at the ramp in issue. The dock will be equipped with a hand rail which will increase the safety of the project. Evidence establishes that without the dock, boaters have to enter the water to launch and recover their boats on a ramp can be slippery and dangerous. The site currently in use as a boat ramp, a part of which will be used for the dock, is almost totally free of any wildlife. No evidence could be seen of any sea grasses or marine life such as oysters, and there was no indication the proposed site is a marine habitat. Manatees do periodically inhabit the area, and warning signs would be required to require construction be stopped when manatee are in the area. The water depth in the immediate area and the width of the waterway is such that navigation would not be adversely impacted by the dock construction, nor is there any indication that water flow would be impeded. No adverse effect to significant historical or archaeological resources would occur and taken together, it is found that the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the project is within the public interest. Concerning the issue of water quality, the applicant has proposed the use of turbidity curtains during construction which would provide reasonable assurances that water quality would not be degraded by or during construction. The water depths in the area are such that propeller dredging and turbidity associated therewith should not be a problem. No evidence was presented or, apparently is on file, to indicate any documented water quality violations at the site, and it is unlikely that water quality standards will be violated by the construction and operation of the structure. The best evidence available indicates there would be no significant cumulative impacts from this project. Impacts from presently existing similar projects and projects reasonably expected in the future, do not, when combined with the instant project, raise the possibility of adverse cumulative degradation of water quality or other factors of concern. By the same token, it is found that secondary impacts resulting from the construction of the project would be minimal. It is also found that this project is eligible for an exemption from the requirements to obtain a permit because of the Department's implementation on October 3, 1995 of new rules relating to environmental resources. However, the City has agreed to follow through with the permitting process notwithstanding the exemption and to accept the permit including all included conditions. This affords far more protection to the environment than would be provided if the conditions to the permit, now applicable to this project, were avoided under a reliance on the exemption to which the City is entitled under current rules. To be sure, evidence presented by Mr. Byrd clearly establishes the operation of the existing boat ramp creates noise, fumes, diminished water conditions and an atmosphere which is annoying, discomfiting, and unpleasant to him and to some of his neighbors who experience the same conditions. Many of the people using the facility openly use foul language and demonstrate a total lack of respect for others. Many of these people also show no respect for the property of others by parking on private property and contaminating the surrounding area with trash and other discardables. It may well be that the presently existing conditions so described were not contemplated when the ramp was built some twenty years ago. An increase in population using water craft, and the development and proliferation of alternative watercraft, such as the personal watercraft, (Ski-Doo), as well as an apparent decline in personal relations skills have magnified the noise and the problem of fumes and considerably. It is not likely, however, that these conditions, most of which do not relate to water quality standards and the other pertinent considerations involved here, will be increased or affected in any way by the construction of the dock in issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue to the city the requested permit to construct the dock in issue at the existing public boat ramp at the east end of 123rd Avenue right of way in the City of Treasure Island. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 12th day of December, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald Schnell, Esquire 3535 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 James W. Denhardt, Esquire 2700 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Christine C. Stretesky, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
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 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
The Issue The issue is whether to approve an application by Respondents, Palm Beach County (County) and The David Minkin Florida Realty Trust, Richard Thall, Robert Thall, Peter L. Briger, Paul H. Briger, and The Lester Family Investments, LP (The Briger Group), for a conceptual Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) authorizing a surface water management system to serve a mixed-use development in the City of Palm Beach Gardens known as Scripps Florida Phase II/Briger (Scripps project).
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties Petitioner Tsolkas resides at 822 North C Street, Lake Worth, Florida, which is approximately 16.8 miles (in a straight line) south-southeast of the project site and approximately one mile west of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). Among others, he expressed concerns in this case about the potential extinction of species and the impact of the proposed site on the ICW. However, other than a general interest in environmental issues, he presented no evidence to demonstrate how he is affected by the issuance of the permit. Petitioner Minaya resides at 901 North Federal Highway, Apartment A, Lake Worth, Florida, and approximately the same distance from the project site and ICW. He has the same concerns as Petitioner Tsolkas but presented no evidence to demonstrate how the project will affect his substantial interests. The County is a chartered county and a political subdivision of the state. It owns approximately 70.0 acres of the site on which the Scripps project will be located and the 193.92-acre off-site mitigation area for the project at the Pine Glades Natural Area (Pine Glades). It is a co-applicant for an ERP. The Briger Group is a co-applicant for the modified ERP and owns 611.69 acres of the project site. The original permit that is being modified was issued as conceptual approval on January 19, 1978. The District is a public corporation in the State, having been created by special act in 1949 and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The Application On April 27, 2009, the applicants submitted an application to modify a conceptual ERP, Application No. 090427- 7, for a surface water management system to serve 681.89 acres of mixed-use development in the City of Palm Beach Gardens (City). The original permit was also issued as a conceptual approval in 1978 and has been modified conceptually on a number of occasions, most recently in 2001. The application includes 193.92 acres of off-site mitigation at Pine Glades in the northern part of the County and additional off-site mitigation through the purchase of mitigation credits at the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank in the southern part of the County. "Conceptual approval" means "an [ERP], issued by the District Governing Board, which approves a conceptual master plan for a surface water management system or a mitigation bank." Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.021(5). It constitutes final agency action and is "binding to the extent that adequate data has been made available for review by the applicant during the review process." Id. After conceptual approval is obtained, the applicants must then file an application for an ERP to construct and operate the surface water management system. Therefore, no construction will be authorized by this permit. On April 16, 2010, the District issued a Staff Report recommending approval of the requested ERP. A Revised Staff Report making minor changes and clarifications to the original proposed agency action was issued on May 4, 2010. The Project and the Site The proposed project that will be served by the surface water management system is a multi-use development on a 681-acre tract located south of Donald Ross Road and north of Hood Road in the City. The site is divided by Interstate 95 (I-95) into two wedge-shaped parcels known as the western and eastern parcels. The Florida Turnpike adjoins the western side of the western parcel. With the exception of the highways, the site is surrounded by residential development including two projects located just east of the site: Legends at the Gardens (on the northern side) and San Michele (on the southern side). A portion of the site located east of I-95 is mostly undeveloped and vegetated. However, approximately 60 acres located at the southeast corner of the site include an existing horse farm with improved and unimproved pastures. The central and southern portions of this parcel contain a number of ditches that were created prior to the 1950s. The portion of the site west of I-95 is undeveloped and vegetated, but it also includes a few mobile homes on approximately 2 acres at the southern end of the site. The upland habitats are disturbed and degraded and primarily include pine flatwoods, mixed hardwood-pine forest, hardwood hammock, and dry prairie, some of which are infested with Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, and Japanese climbing fern. There are also around 86 acres of state jurisdictional wetlands and other surface waters. Finally, the southwestern portion of the parcel located west of I-95 contains a prehistoric/archaeological site which is proposed for preservation. The County owns 70 acres of the property on the eastern parcel, while The Briger Group owns the remaining acreage. The project is anticipated to house the Scripps Research Institute, as well as ancillary institutional, commercial, and residential uses. The project received development of regional impact approval from the City on April 1, 2010, and is subject to a master plan that identifies land use districts, such as a biotech district, a town center district, residential districts, and a neighborhood-serving commercial district. The 70 acres owned by the County will be used to house the second phase of the Scripps Research Institute. It is unknown at this time whether the Scripps facility will house administrative offices, laboratory space, or some other use. The build-out schedule for the project is twenty years. Before construction can commence, the applicants will be required to obtain zoning and site plan approval from the City, authorization from both the Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District (Improvement District) and the Seacoast Utility Authority, and a permit from the County Health Department. Also, the applicants will be required to receive a construction-related modification to the ERP from the District. The Surface Water Management System In 2001, the District issued a permit to the Improvement District for conceptual approval of a surface water management system for flood protection within a 4,059.9-acre area known as Unit 2, which includes the area of the proposed project. See Respondents' Exhibit 57. Drainage from the project site is presently covered by this permit. The Improvement District's system was designed, constructed, and is being operated and maintained for stormwater treatment. The waters in that system are not considered waters of the State. The proposed project will discharge into the Improvement District's system, which is upstream of a permitted man-made control structure on the property designed to retain or detain stormwater runoff in order to provide treatment and attenuation of the stormwater. The proposed system is primarily a wet detention system consisting of three large basins: A1, B1E(East), and B1W(West). The system has been designed to provide water quality and storm water attenuation prior to overflowing to the Improvement District's Unit 2 master system. As shown in the conceptual plans, Basin B1W is located on the west side of I-95 and has a control elevation of 13.5 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Mostly residential development is anticipated in this basin with a small supporting commercial development. An existing 60-inch culvert located under I-95 will continue to connect the two wetland areas, identified as W1 and W2, that are located on both the west and east sides of I- 95, respectively. Basin B1E is located in the southeastern portion of the site and will be controlled at 13.0 feet NGVD. Anticipated development in this area will be mostly residential neighborhoods as well. Exhibit 2 of the Staff Report reflects that runoff from the out-parcels and the northern half of Hood Road will be directed into the proposed project area. Pervious and impervious assumptions were made for future Hood Road improvements and are listed in the land use table. See Respondents' Exhibit 43 at p. 3 of 26. Basin B1E will overflow into the Unit 2 master system via a control structure and outfall pipe which discharges to a wet pond located within the adjacent San Michele development to the east. Industrial and commercial development is planned in Basin A1, which is the northeastern basin. The lakes will be controlled at elevation 13.0 feet NGVD. Runoff from this basin will be directed eastward into the Improvement District's Unit 2 master system via a control structure and pipe connection into the lake within the Legends of the Gardens development to the east. The applicants submitted site grading assumptions and pervious/impervious percentages as well as stormwater modeling to demonstrate compliance with the existing master system for the overall Improvement District's Unit 2 master system. In addition, the system for this basin has been designed to accommodate inflows from approximately 50 acres of I-95 right- of-way through an existing control structure which was permitted as part of the I-95 widening project. The proposed project includes direct impacts to a total of 78.47 acres of on-site wetlands. Wetland mitigation to offset the adverse impacts includes enhancement of 7.50 acres of on-site wetlands; the purchase of 13.70 freshwater herbaceous credits at the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank; off-site wetland and upland restoration and enhancement of 163.41 acres of wetlands; and preservation of 30.51 acres of other surface waters, or a total of 193.92 acres, at Pine Glades. The ERP Permitting Criteria In order to obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. Additionally, the District has adopted BOR provisions that implement the relevant portions of the rules. The conditions for issuance primarily focus on water quantity, water quality, and environmental criteria and form the basis of the District's ERP permitting program. The first step in the District's environmental review is to identify wetlands and other surface waters. On March 5, 2009, the District issued a formal determination of wetlands delineating 34 wetland areas and 4 jurisdictional surface water ditches. This determination was not timely challenged and therefore represents final agency action. That determination was used in this permit application. Water Quantity Criteria Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the propose activity will not cause adverse affects to water quantity, while Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b) requires reasonable assurances that the proposed activity will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property. The BOR provides a method to calculate allowable discharge rates. The evidence is that the proposed discharge is well within the standards imposed by the rules governing water quantity impacts. There will be no on-site or off-site flooding as a consequence of the proposed project. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires reasonable assurance that there will be no adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. The evidence supports a finding that the proposed discharge will not cause any adverse impacts. Also, the system is capable of being developed and of functioning as proposed, as required by Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i). Petitioners contended that the project poses a threat of over-draining, which will significantly affect the region directly and cumulatively. However, the project does not pose a risk of over-draining because the control elevation of the project will be maintained at a level consistent with surrounding properties and the proposed drainage rate is less than the allowable rate under the rules. Water Quality Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) sets forth the requirements relating to water quality. Also, BOR Section 5 contains the design criteria that a project must follow regarding off-site discharges to provide reasonable assurances to satisfy the above rule. Water quality treatment will be provided in a proposed wet detention system which utilizes stormwater ponds. The evidence shows that the ponds are larger than required, thereby providing water quality treatment in excess of what is required by the BOR. All water quality standards will be met. Hazardous Waste Management Plan Petitioners contend that no hazardous waste management plan was submitted to the District. However, a plan is not required now because it would need to address the specific uses for the property, which have not yet been designated. Special Condition 31 of the permit requires that such a plan be submitted at the time an application for construction approval is filed with the District. When this is submitted, it will be reviewed to determine if there are reasonable assurances that hazardous materials, if any, will not enter the proposed project's surface water management system. Elimination and Reduction Under BOR Section 4.2.1, after the District identifies the wetlands and other surface waters, the next step is to consider elimination and reduction of impacts. However, BOR Section 4.2.1.2(b) provides that an applicant is not required to demonstrate elimination and reduction impacts when: the applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides greater ecological value and that provides greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected. In considering this provision, the District concluded, consistent with the evidence, that the quality of the wetlands which will be adversely affected by this application is low, and the mitigation proposed will provide greater long-term ecological value than the wetlands impacted. This is because the mitigation at both Pine Glades and the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank have regional ecological value, and these sites will provide greater long-term ecological value than the impacted wetlands. Secondary Impacts Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) requires reasonable assurance that the project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources. BOR Section 4.2.7 sets forth the requirements for on-site wetlands that will be preserved and enhanced. Under that section, secondary impacts to the habitat of wetlands associated with adjacent upland activities will not be considered adverse if buffers, with a minimum width of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet, are provided abutting the wetlands. In this case, the single wetland area being preserved is buffered in accordance with those requirements. Applicants have satisfied the requirements of the rule. Mitigation If impacts to wetlands and other surface waters will occur, then mitigation may be offered to offset the impacts to functions identified in BOR Sections 4.2 through 4.2.9. To assess the impacts and the value of mitigation, the applicants used the statewide Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method and the Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure. Those results are found in Appendix 1 of the application and in Responses to Requests for Additional Information submitted in August 2009 and January 2010. Page 13 of the Staff Report describes the mitigation. The District also performed its own independent analysis of both the impact and mitigation. That analysis demonstrated that sufficient mitigation is available in the options identified to offset the impacts. In fact, there was a net functional gain to the environment. In order to offset 50.76 acres of wetland impacts, the applicants will provide restoration and enhancement of 139.6 acres of wetlands and 23.81 acres of uplands, and preservation of 30.51 acres of other surface waters, or a total of 193.92 acres, at Pine Glades. Mitigation at this location offsets those impacts and is appropriate because it will provide more functional gain than the amount of functional loss for the same habitat types that are being impacted. Because Pine Glades is within the same drainage basin as the impacts, and the mitigation offsets the impacts, the District is not required to consider cumulative impacts. See § 373.414(8), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(b). Petitioners suggested that because Pine Glades is already owned by the County and intended to be restored, by allowing the applicants to receive mitigation credit for the restoration amounts to "double dipping." However, the evidence shows that the 193 acres proposed as mitigation in the permit is site-specific; no one has ever received mitigation credit for it in the past and no one will be able to receive mitigation credit for it in the future; and The Briger Group paid $86,250.00 per functional unit to reimburse the County for the cost of the land. Mitigation credit for restoration at Pine Glades is appropriate. As compensation for impacts to a total of 26.14 acres of freshwater marsh wetlands, the applicants will mitigate off- site by purchasing 13.70 freshwater herbaceous credits at the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank. This bank is of regional ecological significance. Mitigation at this bank offsets the impacts and is appropriate because it will offset the impacts to freshwater marsh wetlands. Drainage basins are established by District rule in BOR Figure 4.4-1. While Petitioners contended that BOR Figure 4.4-1 does not accurately identify the geographic boundaries of the South Indian River Basin, which is being used here, the District is required to follow its own rules when reviewing an ERP application. Therefore, the use of Figure 4.4-1 was appropriate to determine whether the project is located within or outside of that drainage basin. Because the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank is not located within the same basin as the proposed impacts, it was necessary for the District to consider cumulative impacts which will be mitigated at that bank. See § 373.414(8), Fla. Stat. This means that the applicants are required to give reasonable assurances that the impacts proposed for mitigation at Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank would not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts if the regulatory precedent set by the permit were applied to all properties within the basin that have the same type of habitat as that being impacted by the project and that have potential for development. The project will be located in the South Indian River Basin. The District's cumulative impact analysis for that basin supports a finding that there is very limited potential for future wetland loss in the basin and reasonable assurances have been given that there will be no adverse cumulative impacts. See Respondents' Exhibit 60. Species Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires an applicant to demonstrate that the activities will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. This evaluation is limited to wetland-dependent species. Upland species fall outside of the District's jurisdiction. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, the hand fern is not a wetland-dependent species. Also, the District must rely on State-listed species, and not lists prepared by federal agencies. The evidence shows that the potential for utilization of this site by wetland-dependent species is minimal, and this site does not contain preferred habitat for nesting or denning of wetland dependent listed species. Although the site does not contain preferred habitat, the habitat value currently existing on this site will be replaced with mitigation at Pine Glades and the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank. Public Interest Test In order to obtain a conceptual approval ERP, an applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the system located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters will not be contrary to the public interest and will not be inconsistent with the objectives of the District. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)1.-7.; § 373.414(1), Fla. Stat. The evidence establishes that reasonable assurances were provided to demonstrate that the proposed activities will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or the welfare or property of others; that they will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitat; that there are no issues related to navigability or the flow of water, erosion or shoaling; that the property does not currently provide fishing, recreational values, or marine productivity and is not open to the public; that the activity will be permanent; that there is an archeological site on the property which the applicants will preserve; that the mitigation will more than fully offset the impacts; and that the value of the functions currently being performed will not be adversely affected. Petitioners offered no evidence or analysis to rebut the expert testimony offered by Respondents. After balancing all seven factors, the evidence supports a finding that the activities will not be contrary to the public interest. Florida Coastal Management Program Petitioners contend that the project is inconsistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMA), which is administered by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). They also assert that the District is required to coordinate its review of the application with that agency and that it failed to do so. However, the issuance of the ERP (after a demonstration that all permitting criteria have been satisfied) constitutes certification that the project is consistent with the FCMA and no coordination with DEP is necessary. Other Criteria Any other criteria not discussed herein were either satisfied by the applicants or are not relevant to the project. Petitioners' Evidence Other than very limited cross-examination of some of Respondents' witnesses, Petitioner Minaya did not present any evidence to support his allegations. Other than cross-examination of Respondents' witnesses, Petitioner Tsolkas, a lay person, testified that his standing was based on general concerns that the project would drive species (such as the hand fern) into extinction, that it would pollute waters, including the ICW, and that it would destroy habitat for other species. No competent or persuasive evidence to support these contentions was presented. Other issues raised by Mr. Tsolkas were matters beyond the District's jurisdiction and are not considered in the permitting process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting Application No. 090427-7 with the conditions contained in the Amended Staff Report. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2010, 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 30th day of November, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Koreshan Unity Foundation, Inc., is entitled to a environmental resource permit for the construction of a wooden footbridge over the Estero River east of U.S. Route 41 and authorization to obtain by easement a right to use sovereign submerged lands.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Koreshan Unity Foundation, Inc. (Koreshan) is a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to the preservation of the Koreshan heritage. Koreshan derives its heritage from a largely self-sufficient community that occupied land in south Lee County. For several years, Koreshan has owned a parcel of 14.56 acres at the southeast corner of U.S. Route 41 and the Estero River. This parcel is bounded on the south by Corkscrew Road and contains an amphitheater and historical house, midway between the river and Corkscrew Road. The south end of this parcel contains a museum and parking area with access to Corkscrew Road. The approximate dimensions of the 14.56-acre parcel are 544 feet along the river, 496 feet along Corkscrew Road, and about 1273 feet along the west and the east property lines. The west property line is U.S. Route 41. The right-of-way for U.S. Route 41 is wider at the southern two-thirds of the parcel than the northern one-third of the parcel. A sidewalk runs on the east side of U.S. Route 41 from north of the river, across the U.S. Route 41 bridge, along the west boundary of Koreshan's property, at least to an entrance near the middle of the 14.56-acre parcel. In October 1996, Koreshan acquired 8.5 acres of land at the northeast corner of the U.S. Route 41 and the river. The purpose of the acquisition was to provide parking for persons coming to Koreshan-sponsored events, such as music performances, at the 14.56-acre site. Koreshan rents a small portion of this northerly parcel to a canoe-rental business, which operates where the bridge and river meet. To assist their visitors-some of whom are elderly and disabled--in gaining access to the 14.56-acre site, on November 26, 1996, Koreshan filed an application for a permit and authorization to construct a wooden footbridge across the Estero River about 315 feet east of the U.S. Route 41 bridge. The source of the Estero River is to the east of the U.S. Route 41 bridge and the location of the proposed bridge. After passing under the U.S. Route 41 bridge, the river runs along the Koreshan state park, which is a short distance east of U.S. Route 41, before it empties into the Gulf of Mexico at Estero Bay, which is a state aquatic preserve. The portion of the river at the site of the proposed bridge is an Outstanding Florida Waterway (OFW) and a Class III water. The river is popular with canoeists and kayakers. Persons may rent canoes and kayaks at the canoe rental business operating on the 8.5-acre parcel or the Koreshan state park. Although most canoeists and kayakers proceed downstream toward the bay, a significant number go upstream past the U.S. Route 41 bridge. Upstream of the bridge, the river narrows considerably. Tidal currents reach upstream of the U.S. Route 41 bridge. At certain tides or in strong winds, navigating a canoe or kayak in this area of the river can be moderately difficult. Even experienced canoeists or kayakers may have trouble maintaining a steady course in this part of the river. Less experienced canoeists or kayakers more often have trouble staying on course and avoiding other boats, the shore, vegetation extending from the water or shoreline, or even the relatively widely spaced supports of the U.S. Route 41 bridge pilings, which are about 30 feet apart. Mean high water is at 1.11 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum. The deck of the proposed footbridge would be 9 feet, 6 inches wide from rail to rail and 16 feet wide in total. The proposed footbridge would extend about 180 feet, spanning 84 feet of water from shore to shore. The bridge- ends would each be about 50 feet and would each slope at a rate of 1:12. The proposed footbridge would rest on nine pilings: four in the uplands and five in the submerged bottom. The elevation of the bottom of the footbridge from the water surface, at mean high water, would be 8 feet, 8 inches. The distance between the centers of the pilings would be 14 feet, and each piling would be of a minimum diameter of 8 inches. According to a special permit condition, the pilings would be treated with chromated copper arsenate, as a preservative, but they would be wrapped in impermeable plastic or PVC sleeves so as, in the words of the proposed permit, "to reduce the leaching of deleterious substances from the pilings." The proposed permit requires that the sleeves shall be installed from at least 6 inches below the level of the substrate to at least 1 foot above the seasonal highwater line and shall be maintained over the life of the facility. The proposed permit also requires that the footbridge be limited to pedestrian traffic only, except for wheelchairs. The permit requires the applicant to install concrete-filled steel posts adjacent to the bridge to prevent vehicles from using the bridge. The proposed permit requires that Koreshan grant a conservation easement for the entire riverbank running along both shorelines of Koreshan's two parcels, except for the dock and boat ramp used by the canoe-rental business. The proposed permit also requires Koreshan to plant leather fern or other wetland species on three-foot centers along the river banks along both banks for a distance of 30 feet. The proposed permit states that the project shall comply with all applicable water quality standards, including the antidegradation permitting requirements of Rule 62-4.242, Florida Administrative Code. Respondents did not raise standing as an affirmative defense. It appears that Petitioners or, in the case of corporate Petitioners, members and officers all live in the area of the Estero River and use the river regularly. For instance, Petitioner Dorothy McNeill resides one mile south of the proposed bridge on a canal leading to the Estero River, which she uses frequently. She is the president and treasurer of Petitioner Estero Conservancy, whose mission is to preserve the Estero River in its natural state. Petitioner Ellen W. Peterson resides on Corkscrew Road, 300-400 feet from the proposed footbridge. For 26 years, she has paddled the river several times weekly, usually upstream because it is prettier. She formerly canoed, but now kayaks. The record is devoid of evidence of the water- quality criteria for the Estero River at the time of its designation as an OFW or 1995, which is the year prior to the subject application. Koreshan has not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed footbridge would not adversely affect the water quality of the Estero River. Although the site of the proposed footbridge is devoid of bottom vegetation and there is no suggestion that this is anything but a natural condition for this part of the riverbottom, there is evidence that the proposed footbridge would adversely affect the water quality in two respects: turbidity caused by the pilings and leaching from the chromated copper arsenate applied to the pilings. The turbidity is probably the greater threat to water quality because it would be a permanent factor commencing with the completion of the installation of the pilings. The leaching of the heavy metals forming the toxic preservative impregnated into the pilings is probable due to two factors: damage to the PVC liner from collisions with inexperienced boaters and high-water conditions that exceed 1 foot over mean high water and, thus, the top of the liner. Both of these factors are exacerbated by flooding, which is addressed below. Koreshan also has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed footbridge is clearly in the public interest under the seven criteria. The proposed footbridge would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare and the property of others through exacerbated flooding. South Lee County experienced serious flooding in 1995. In response, Lee County and the South Florida Water Management District have attempted to improve the capacity of natural flowways, in part by clearing rivers of snags and other impediments to flow, including, in the case of the Imperial River, a bridge. One important experience learned from the 1995 floods was to eliminate, where possible, structures in the river, such as snags and pilings, that collect debris in floodwaters and thereby decrease the drainage capacity of the waterway when drainage capacity is most needed. Longer term, the South Florida Water Management District is considering means by which to redirect stormwater from the Imperial River drainage to the Estero River drainage. The addition of five pilings (more as the river rose) would exacerbate flooding. On this basis alone, Koreshan has failed to provide reasonable assurance. Additionally, though, the HEC II model output offered by Koreshan does not consider flooding based on out-of-banks flows, but only on the basis of roadway flows. In other words, any assurances as to flooding in the design storm are assurances only that U.S. Route 41 will not be flooded, not that the lower surrounding land will not be flooded. Koreshan failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity would not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, for the reasons already stated with respect to water quality. Koreshan failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity would not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water. The flow of water is addressed above. Navigation is best addressed together with the next criterion: whether the proposed activity would adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. Despite the presence of only two public launch sites, boating is popular on the Estero River. Reflective of the population growth of Collier County to the south and the area of Lee County to the north, the number of boaters on the Estero River has grown steadily over the years. The canoe- rental business located on the 8.5-acre parcel rented canoes or kayaks to over 10,000 persons in 1996. Many other persons launched their canoes or kayaks for free from this site and the nearby state park. Lee County businesses derive $800,000,000 annually from tourism with ecotourism a growing component of this industry. The Estero River is an important feature of this industry, and the aquatic preserve at the mouth of the river and the state park just downstream from the proposed footbridge provide substantial protection to the scenic and environmental values that drive recreational interest in the river. It is unnecessary to consider the aesthetic effect of a footbridge spanning one of the more attractive segments of the Estero River. The proposed footbridge and its five pilings effectively divide the river into six segments of no more than 14 feet each. This fact alone diminishes the recreational value of the river for the many canoeists and kayakers who cannot reliably navigate the U.S. Route 41 bridge pilings, which are more than twice as far apart. As to the remaining criteria, the proposed footbridge would be permanent and the condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity is high. There is conflicting evidence as to whether the proposed footbridge would adversely affect the remnants of an historic dock, but it is unnecessary to resolve this conflict. The mitigation proposed by Koreshan does not address the deficiencies inherent in the proposed activity.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order dismissing the petition of Petitioner Council of Civic Associations, Inc., and denying the application of Respondent Koreshan Unity Foundation, Inc., for an environmental resource permit and authorization to obtain an easement for the use of sovereign land. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Malone Vice President and Treasurer Council of Civic Associations, Inc. Post Office Box 919 Estero, Florida 33919-0919 Reginald McNeill Dorothy McNeill, President Estero Conservancy, Inc. 26000 Park Place Estero, Florida 33928 Mark E. Ebelini Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 301 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Phyllis Stanley, President 12713-3 McGregor Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Cathy S. Reiman Cummings & Lockwood Post Office Box 413032 Naples, Florida 34101-3032 Francine M. Ffolkes Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
