The Issue The issues to he determined in this matter concern the question of whether it is necessary for the Petitioner to obtain a dredge and fill permit from the Respondent prior to the construction of a road. Should it be found that the Respondent has jurisdiction to require a permit prior to such construction, the related question of the Petitioner's entitlement to a dredge and fill permit as envisioned by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code, must also be resolved.
Findings Of Fact The property which is the subject of this dispute is located in Clay County, Florida, south of the city of Orange Park, Florida, adjacent to Blanding Boulevard which is also known as State Road 21. The project at issue contemplates the relocation of a portion of a road known as Hear Run Boulevard, which presently intersects with Blanding Boulevard. The present configuration of Hear Run Boulevard serves a building housing the Clay County Courthouse Annex, which has also been referred to as a tag agency building, and a subdivision known as Bear Run Subdivision. If the alternate road were constructed it would serve the same purpose in terms of utility. That construction would involve the placement of fill material in a cleared area over which Respondent asserts permit jurisdiction under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner does not believe that Respondent has jurisdiction to require a permit; however, if the permit is needed, Petitioner believes that it is entitled to the grant of a permit. As presently envisioned, it would be necessary to place approximately .48 acres of fill to construct the road. The relative location of the present Bear Run Boulevard, Blanding Boulevard, and the relocated Dear Run Boulevard are depicted in Petitioner's exhibit number 3, admitted into evidence. Petitioner had cleared the site of the proposed realignment of Bear Run Boulevard, prior to the fall of 1981. As a consequence, determination of the jurisdictional limits of the Department of Environmental Regulation, by the use of indicator species set forth in Rule 17-4.02, Florida Administrative Code, in establishing' the upland reach of waters of the state for permitting purposes was made more difficult than normal. Nonetheless, in September, 1981, as modified in November, 1981, Timothy Deuerling, Respondent's employee, in conjunction with Thad Hart of the United States Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, examined parcels of land adjacent to the site in question, which parcels are roughly to the east and west of the area in question and having identified plants found within the indicator species list of Rule 17-4.02, Florida Administrative Code, in sufficient numbers, established the jurisdictional limits of the Respondent's permit authority immediately below the present location of Bear Run Boulevard. In September, 1981, the swamp area south of the cleared property had been seen by Deuerling to be characterized by bald cypress, ash, blackgum and titi . In effect, an imaginary line was drawn between the wetland species on the adjacent sides of the site through the Petitioner's property with that portion of the site found roughly to the south of the imaginary line being considered within the waters of the state and property roughly to the north of the line being regarded as uplands and beyond the jurisdiction of the state. The initial determination of September, 1981, had been adjusted in November, 1981, moving the jurisdictional line further towards the receiving body of water which is known as Little Black Creek, a Class III water body. (Cyrilla racemil- flora) Two weeks before the hearing date in this cause, a project site inspection was made by Jeremy Guy Anthony Tyler, an employee wish the Department of Environmental Regulation. Tyler is the holder of a bachelor of science degree in mathematics, geology and physical geology and a masters degree in oceanography. His course study included chemistry and biology. He observed colonial upland species such as dog fennel and broom sage, together with some wetland species such as cypress seedlings, ash seedlings, button brush, cattails, willows, and Sagittaria, also known as arrowhead. Tyler indicated that the cattails and willows found on the site are typical invading wetland- type species. As Tyler described cattails and willows are plants that are seen at the start of a cycle of wet land development and would be expected to disappear as wetland species of trees became established. The wetland species were considerable in number. Dr. A Quentin White, Jr., Ph.D. in biology, gave testimony in behalf of the Petitioner and established that following clearing of the site, certain invader or colonial type species such as Phragmites and tipon, wetland species envisioned by the jurisdictional indicator list appeared. These colonial or invader species, as described by Dr. White, are probably located on the site in the positions observed because of off-site runoff into the site. Dr. White observed some cypress seedlings at the edge of the clearing adjacent to "'hat he describes as a swamp area, moving in the direction of Little Black Creek. These observations took place the day before the commencement of the hearing. White was uncertain of the jurisdictional limits of the Department of Environmental Regulation, expressing the opinion that the limit as established by the plant indices fell somewhere within the cleared area, which is the subject of this dispute, but did not extend as far as the current location of Hear Run Boulevard, based upon his perception of dominant vegetational species. Having considered the testimony and non-testimonial evidence, the facts demonstrate that the site of the proposed relocation of Bear Run Boulevard is within the dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Regulation. Respondents exhibit 8 is an aerial photograph depicting the site prior to the clearing. Respondent's exhibit 7 depicts the site following the clearing. A comparison of these two aerial photographs supports the determination that the relocation of Bear Run Boulevard falls within the permitting jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Regulation as established by plant indicators. This is further borne out by the testimony of the witness Tyler in describing the vegetational signature found on Respondent's exhibit 8. 1/ Mr. Coleman was present when the September, 1981, initial jurisdictional line and the refinement of that choice which moved the line in the direction of Little Black Creek, in November, 1981, were physically established. Coleman was instructed that any activity below that line in the direction of Black Creek would require permitting. Nonetheless, fill material was placed in the cleared area to include chunks of asphalt. This led to the entry of the cease and desist order of February 22, 1982, on the part of the United States Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's exhibit number 3 admitted into evidence. That material was subsequently removed and its removal was acknowledged in correspondence from the Corps of Engineers to Ralph Coleman dated October 5, 1982. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Respondent's exhibit number 4 admitted into evidence. Having constructed the present Bear Run Boulevard as it intersects with State Road 21, Coleman and Associates, Inc., determined to relocate the road and made application to the Department of Environmental Regulation for the issuance of a dredge and fill permit. A copy of that application may be found as Petitioner's exhibit number 4 admitted into evidence. The date of the application was December 22, 1982. The purpose of the relocation was to build a connection to State Road 21 which did not have as severe a curve as the 30 degree curve in the present configuration of Bear Run Boulevard. This initial application sought permission to fill an area of approximately .73 acres, and contemplated the placement of fill between the existing location of Bear Run Boulevard as it intersects with State Road 21 and the area where the road was to be relocated. The area of fill may be seen in crosshatch in a planview drawing, a copy of which is found as Petitioner's exhibit number 2, admitted into evidence. This request for relocation of Bear Run Boulevard was supported by John W. Bowles, Public Works Director, Clay County, Florida, as evidenced by correspondence to that effect, addressed to Ralph Coleman on December 28, 1982, a copy of which Petitioner's exhibit number 8 admitted into evidence. Following discussion with G.E. Carter, an employee of the Department of Environmental Regulation, the Petitioner, in the person of Ralph R. Coleman as president, offered revision to the application for the placement of fill as seen in the February 22, 1953, correspondence to that effect, a copy of which is Respondent's exhibit number 2 admitted into evidence. That exhibit erroneously depicts the amount of fill as being 3300 yards. As previously described, the fill was approximately .48 acres. In essence, the new project would only promote fill material in the area of the new roadway or relocated road. It does not contemplate the placement of fill between the new road and the existing Bear Run Boulevard. This amendment to the application is graphically depicted, in terms of the fill placement, through the drawing which is Petitioner's exhibit number 3 admitted into evidence. The crosshatch shows the fill material to be placed. This amendment also modified the project to the extent that a widening of Blending Boulevard by efforts of the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, caused the placement of fill in an area of the proposed relocation of Bear Run Boulevard, which was not the case in the initial application for permit of December 22, 1982. This circumstance is shown in Petitioner's exhibit number 3 and is otherwise described in the testimony of the witnesses. "what has occurred is that the Department of Transportation has filled an area of the proposed relocated road and the .48 acres constitutes the balance of the necessary fill. On February 25, 1983, G. F. Carter, as Environmental Specialist with the Department of Environmental Regulation, had written to Coleman and Associates, Inc., suggesting that the project, as proposed, and that is taken to mean the project as proposed on December 22, 1992, would have an adverse impact on the environment. The correspondence goes on to state that modification suggested by Carter could lessen the impact to the extent of possibly eliminating any justifiable reason for denying the permit. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's exhibit number 9 admitted into evidence. It is unclear exactly what Carter meant by this statement of how Petitioner could achieve permission to install the relocated road. However, it is evident that Coleman felt that the revisions of February 22, 1903, constituted the pursuit of changes which would lead to the issuance of a permit for dredge and fill. Whatever Carter's intentions, he could not bind the agency head of the Department of Environmental Regulation in the ultimate determination to grant or deny the permit as applied for in the revised plan of February 22, 1983. Ultimately, Respondent denied Petitioner's revised application for a dredge and fill permit based upon the belief that to grant permission to place fill materials as contemplated by the project, would cause a degradation of the water quality of state waters as envisioned by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. This led to the present formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes hearing as requested by the Petitioner. In the present circumstance in the cleared area where the relocated road would be built, a large amount of stormwater runoff is occurring, primarily from road surfaces and the parking lot adjacent to the Clay County Courthouse Annex. The road surfaces are constituted of the present Bear Run Boulevard and State Road 21. Within this runoff is a large quantity of sediment and some oil and gas and other debris that falls on the road surface. Part of that debris is in a dissolved state. This surface runoff is receiving very little pollution treatment in its passage over the area cleared by the Petitioner. Dr. White gave the opinion that should Bear Run Boulevard be relocated, a retention area would be created within the boundaries of the present Bear Run Boulevard, the relocation of Bear Run Boulevard and State Road 21, thus improving water quality by retaining some of the runoff for a short period of time within that triangular shaped retention area. At present Dr. White finds water quality degradation which is more pronounced than would be the case if Dear Run Boulevard was relocated and the retention area created as described. White contemplates a circumstance, in which, with the relocation of Bear Run Boulevard swales and grassy areas could be designed to retain much of the sediment and act as a filter in treating water coming off State Road 21 through a culvert before entering the well vegetated wetlands area adjacent to the clearing, as one moves in the direction of Little Black Creek. White believes that this sediment which is being discharged through the transport system will eventually creep over into the stand of wetland trees and smother those trees along the fringe of the more well vegetated area at the southern edge of the clearing. The swales and grassy areas are as distinguished from the retention area within the triangular shape piece of land to be boardered by the present road surfaces and the relocated Bear Run Boulevard. Dr. White found that the cleared area exchanges waters with Little Black Creek in the sense of a flow in the direction of Little Black Creek from the proposed project site, notwithstanding a finger of land which is higher in elevation between the site and Little Black Creek as may be seen in Petitioner's composite exhibit number 11, a topographical survey map depicting various elevations in the vicinity of the project. Dr. White noted the very eroded condition of the project site, especially in the area of discharge from State Road 21, on the southern end of the cleared area. The by-product of this erosion, as seen by Dr. White, is the movement of sediment into waters of the state having a detrimental effect on water quality, primarily through increased turbidity. With increased turbidity productivity of the plants species is reduced. In addition, animals which live in the water are adversely affected. This problem with erosion may also cause submerged aquatic vegetation to be covered over and disrupt the nesting habitats of animal species. Dr. White concedes that the placement of fill material, such as would be the circumstance with the construction of the relocated Bear Run Boulevard, in that immediate zone, would kill the wetlands species, thereby removing them as a source of filtration of pollutants in the effort to maintain water quality. Dr. White believes that with the continuation of heavy rains in storm events, the wetland vegetation which is native to the cleared area might be washed out. On the other hand, if the area was allowed to recover, and a reduction of water flow were to occur, removing the destructive quality of that flow, he would expect the reoccurrence of sweetgum, cypress, water tupolo, and other species which are found in hardwood swamp areas. (wetlands) Although Dr. White was struck by the amount of erosion and sedimentation associated with runoff through control devices for and on the road surface of State Road 21, at the southern end of the cleared area, he could not quantify what percentage of the problem of erosion was attributable to the State Road 21 circumstance, the parking lot of the Clay County Courthouse Annex and the existing Bear Run Boulevard. Dr. White believes that upland retention basin would be preferable to retention in the cleared area, but upland property is not within the ownership and control of the Petitioner for such purpose. Dr. White has the opinion that Little Black Creek would only flood the cleared area in question in times of extremely high water. The observations by Dr. White are accepted as accurate. George Register, III, consultant to the Petitioner, has observed the site and gave his testimony. Register is the holder of a bachelors degree in biology and a masters degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering. He noted two flumes which discharge water from the Bear Run Boulevard, in times of storm events, going directly into the cleared area. He feels that a retention area on site can offer water treatment for the rainfall which is directly on the property and flowing through the property. Register also observed the situation related to State Road 21, particularly the road drainage system associated with the widening of State Road 21 from a two-lane to a four-lane road. Register would expand the idea of Dr. White concerning swales and grassing on the site to deal with the discharge from State Road 21, because he does not feel that the problem associated with the discharge can be completely alleviated on the site. He would use the more vegetated wetland area south of the cleared area to treat the runoff from State Road 21, by the settling of suspended particles in the runoff and the slowing down of the flow through the vegetated area using dikes and weirs and other control structures before the final discharge into Little Black Creek. (All of the activities associated with State Road 21, as to construction and drainage, are the responsibility of the State of Florida, Department of Transportation.) Register, as did White, noted that the present circumstance, given the amount of water being discharged onto the site, is not one which affords meaningful water treatment on the site. Register also observed the mix of wetlands and upland vegetation in the cleared area. He noted that exchange of water in the direction from Little Black Creek to the cleared area would only occur in times of extreme flooding, which has not occurred during the years in which he has had knowledge of this site. Register was not able to attribute the amount of runoff associated with the Clay County Courthouse Annex, Bear Run Boulevard, and State Road 21, in terms of percentages of contribution in a rainfall event, but was impressed by the volume from State Road 21. He does not find the present sparse wetlands vegetation, the colonial or volunteer species found at the site, to be of much value in water treatment. In order to afford meaningful treatment, Register thinks that the stand must be very healthy and diverse, as would commonly occur on the site, before it may offer a meaningful assistance in stormwater treatment. To improve the situation on the site, he would create the retention area with berming and weirs and other control structures and plant select kinds of vegetation to help in water treatment. Given the present circumstance, he would expect that in the area of the State Road 21 discharge pipe some form of wetlands vegetation such as cattails or pickleweed would persist as a "little band" of material. The rest of the area he expects to come back predominately as upland vegetation given the current trend, particularly as eroded material continues to be deposited on the site. The use of erosion control mats and the planting of certain types of vegetation to slow dawn the erosion, would not be sufficient to reverse the trend of the introduction of upland vegetation in the cleared area. Register's observations are accepted as accurate. The detail envisioned in the construction of the retention area, the Placement of swales and grassing, as described by White and Register, cannot be found in the original or amended application of the Petitioner. Nonetheless, Petitioner expressed a willingness to employ those techniques suggested by his consultants, Register and White, if given permission to construct the relocated Bear Run Boulevard. Petitioner's exhibits 18, 19, 20, 23, and 24, which are photographs admitted into evidence, depicts the impact of the expansion of State Road 21, in terms of sedimentation and erosion on site and in the more well vegetated wetlands area south of the site or cleared area. Some of those photographs show the types of vegetation as described by the various witnesses who gave testimony. The photograph attached to Petitioner's exhibit number 10 shows standing water in the cleared area, which is a frequent occurrence. The soil in the cleared area has remained wet following the clearing. The witness Tyler, who is a supervisor of the dredge and fill section of the northeast district office of the Department of Environmental Regulation, gave his impressions of the project. Tyler looks upon the creation of the area between existing Bear Run Boulevard, the proposed Dear Run Boulevard, and State Route 21 as an act of taking that area constituted of a triangular shaped piece of land out of the system in terms of water quality maintenance. He does not perceive this modification of the original application to exclude the placement of fill within that triangular shaped parcel as being an improvement to the original design. He overlooks the value of retention of water within the parcel as having a role in terms of water treatment and protection of the more dense wetlands area south of the site and Little Black Creek and the relatively ineffectual situation that now exists in the way of water treatment. That southerly dense area has been seen by Tyler to contain a number of cypress, tupelo, sweetgum and maple trees. Tyler feels that the effect of the project would be to eliminate the cleansing effect of the treatment on-site on the occasions where Little Black Creek overflows it is banks in the direction of the proposed construction site. This, as established through the testimony of White and Register, is an infrequent event. In summary, Tyler overlooked the potential of change, especially with attendant features which could be placed in the triangular shaped retention area and the contribution of placement of swales and grassing add. Although this causes detrimental impact on the site, changes would tend to improve water quality in the more pristine area south of the site, by tending to improve the filtering capacity of the clear area, which at present has little value in that role. Timothy Deuerling is an Environmental Specialist with the Department of Environmental Regulation. He holds a bachelors degree in Science and has taken course work in biology, zoology, and botany. In his visits to the site in the cleared area Duereling has observed cattails, brushes, willows, cypress and ash. He believes that the relocation of Bear Run Boulevard would adversely affect the water quality of Little Black Creek in the instance of placement of a fill in a wetland area, thus eliminating vegetation and soil which could filter and dissimulate pollutants and nutrients in the water. He feels that on the occasion of a reverse flow of water, from the creek to the site, as opposed to the site to the creek, placement of a roadbed would tend to take away the ability of that vegetation which has been covered over by the roadbed to remove pollutants and excess nutrients from the waters of Little Black Creek. By such action of building the road, he feels that the cumulative impact is to cause a violation of water quality, in that at some point in time the accumulation of projects will be such that the system will go out of balance and stay out of balance in terms of water quality. Deuerling believes that the general area of the project is a prime location for such projects. Even though Deuerling concedes that a retention area on site would clean up the water, he does not feel that is an acceptable alternative, given the fact that this area of retention is within the landward extent of Little Black Creek. The effect of the placement of retention area on site is to pollute waters which are already those which are the responsibility of the state, according to Deuerling. Deuerling would vie for upland retention. Deuerling's opinions are not accepted, given the fact that the present site offers little or no filtering capacity. The construction of the relocated Bear Run Boulevard with attendant features envisioned by Dr. White and Mr. Register would improve the filtering capacity, and enhance the overall system at the expense of an element of the system which, at present, offers little or no benefit and whose prospects are not such that those beneficial features will improve in the future if left in the present state. Uplands are not available for the placement of retention areas, and that suggestion, while more desirable, is not viable in this circumstance. Finally, while cumulative impact, as associated with intentional discharge into waters of the state, is a matter for consideration, the present case is not one which presents that form of discharge. The State of Florida, Department of Transportation, in widening State Road 21 from a two lane to a four lane road, in the vicinity of the Petitioner's project, placed approximately ten acres of fill in the landward extent of waters of the state. This was in furtherance of the application for a dredge and fill permit filed with the Respondent, a copy of that application being found as' Petitioner's exhibit number 5. A Copy of the permit may be found as Petitioner's exhibit number 6 admitted into evidence, dating from April 29, 1983. The Department of Transportation was also allowed to remove 1778 cubic yards of fill material. The permit set forth general and specific conditions to include revegetation, turbidity control, turbidity monitoring, erosion control, immediate stabilization of filled areas, and efforts at minimizing the wetlands disruption. In carrying out its function, approximately .096 acres of land which was contemplated for filling in the original Coleman application was filled by the Department of Transportation. No filling was done by the Department of Transportation in the area contemplated by the revised application offered by the Petitioner. The Department of Transportation did fill an area which intersects with State Road 21 and will serve as part of the roadbed for the relocated Bear Run Boulevard. The cleared area, and specifically the site where the fill material would be placed in the construction and relocation of Bear Run Boulevard, is within Class III waters of the state, as described in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code and subject to water quality standards pertaining to that classification. With the advent of this construction, given the limited value of the filtering capacity of the present site and the changes that can be promoted by the replacement of a retention area and associated features, while it might be expected to influence water quality standards at issue within the area of the placement of the fill material and within the retention basin, it would promote an improvement in the condition of the water quality in the flood plain which is immediately south of the cleared site and ultimately improve the condition of Little Black Creek. This finding relates to those water quality standards dealing with biochemical oxygen demand, nutrients, turbidity, biological integrity, and dissolved oxygen. The State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, has granted authority to pursue the project as envisioned by Section 253.77, Florida Statutes, and confirmed by correspondence of Henry Dean, Interim Director, Division of Land Sales, dated January 28, 1983. A copy of this confirmation may be found as Petitioner's exhibit number 7 admitted into evidence. The United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and United States Environmental Protection Agency made known their comments on the project through correspondence, copies of which may be found as Respondent's composite exhibit number 9 admitted into evidence.
Conclusions On May 11, 2007, the Division of Administrative Hearings (‘DOAH’) submitted a _ Recommended Order (“RO”) to the Department of Environmental Protection (‘DEP’) i in . these consolidated proceedings. Copies of the RO were served upon the Petitioners, Mellita A. Lane, Jacqueline M. Lane, Peter A. Lane, (“Lane Petitioners”); Friends of Perdido Bay,.Inc., and James A. Lane (“FOPB”); and the Co-Respondent, International Paper Company (“IP” ). On May 29, 2007, all Petitioners and Respondent IP filed Exceptions to the RO. Respondent DEP filed Exceptions to the RO and Motion for Remand. ; On June 8, 2007, the FOPB filed a Reply to IP’s Exceptions and a Response to DEP’s Motion for Remand and Exceptions. The Lane Petitioners filed their Response to iP’s and DEP’s Exceptions. Respondent DEP filed Responses to the Exceptions filed . by the FOPB, the Lane Petitioners and IP. Respondent IP filed Responses to the Exceptions of FOPB, the Lane Petitioners and DEP. This matter is now before me for. final agency action. . _ BACKGROUND » Florida Pulp and Paper Company first began operating the Cantonment paper mill in. 1941. St. Regis Paper Company (St. Regis” ) acquired the mill in 1946. In 4984, Champion International Corporation (“Champion”) acquired the mill. Champion changed the product mix in 1986 from unbleached packaging paper to bleached products such a as printing and writing grades c of paper. In 2001, Champion merged with IP, and IP took over operation of the mill. The primary product of the mill continues to | be printing and writing paper. ' The mill s wastewater effluent i is discharged into Elevenmile Creek, which is a tributary of Perdido Bay. The creek flows southwest into the northeastern portion of Perdido Bay. Elevenmile Creek is a freshwater stream for most of its length but is . sometimes tidally affected one to two miles from its mouth. Elevenmile Creek is designated as a Class I water. Perdido Bay is approximately 28 square miles in area and is bordered by Escambia County on the east and Baldwin County, Alabama, on the west. The dividing line between ‘the states runs north and south in the approximate middle of Perdido Bay. U.S. Highway 98 crosses the Bay, going east and west, and forms the boundary between what is-often referred to as the “Upper Bay” and “Lower Bay.” The Bay is relatively shallow, especially | in the Upper Bay, ranging in depth between five and ten feet. Perdido Bay i is designated asa Class ill water. Sometime around 1900, a manmade navigation channel was cut through the narrow strip of land separating Perdido Bay from the Gulf of Mexico. The channel, called Perdido Pass, allowed the salt waters of the Gulf to move with the tides up into Perdido Bay. Depending on tides and freshwater inflows, the tidal waters can move into the most northern portions of Perdido Bay and even further, into its tributaries and wetlands. The Perdido River flows into the northwest portion of Perdido Bay. Itis primarily a freshwater river but itis sometimes tidally influenced at and near its mouth. The Perdido River was designated an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW’) in 11979. At the north end of Perdido Bay, between Elevenmile Creek and the Perdido River, isa large tract of land owned by IP called the Rainwater Tract, The northern part of the tract is primarily freshwater wetlands. The southern partis a tidal marsh. Tee and Wicker Lakes are small (approximately 50 acres in total surface area) tidal ponds within the tidal marsh. Depending on the tides, the lakes can be as shallow as one foot, or several feet deep. A channel through the marsh allows boaters to gain access to Tee and Wicker Lakes from Perdido Bay. | ' Before 1995, the mill had to have both state and federal permits. The former Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (‘DER’) issued St. Regis an industrial wastewater operating permit in 1982 pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") issued St. Regis a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“ NPDES") permit i in 1983 pursuant to the Clean Water Act. When it acquired the facility in 1984, Champion continued to operate the mill under these two permits. In 1986, Champion obtained a construction permit from DER to install the oxygen delignification technology and other improvements to its wastewater treatment plant (‘WWTP’) in conjunction with the conversion of the production process from an unbleached to a modified bleached kraft production - process. In 1987, Champion applied to DER for an operating permit-for its modified WWITP and also petitioned for a variance from the Class iI water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for iron, specific conductance, zinc, and transparency. DER's . subsequent proposal to issue the operating permit and variance was formally challenged. In 1988, while the challenges to the DER permit and variance were still pending, Champion dropped its application for the operating permit and requested a . temporary operating permit ("TOP"), instead. In December 1989, DER and Champion entered into Consent Order No. 87-1398 (‘the 1989 Consent Order’). The 1989 Consent Order included an allegation by DER that the mill's wastewater discharge was causing violations of state water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for dissolved oxygen (“DO”), un-ionized ammonia, and biological integrity. The 1989 Consent Order authorized the continued operation of the mill, but established a process for addressing the water quality problems in Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay and bringing the mill into compliance in the future. Champion was required to install equipment to increase the DO in its effluent within a year. Champion was also required to submit a plan of study and, 30 months after DER's approval of the plan of study, to submit a study report on the impacts of the mill's effluent on DO in Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay and recommend measures for reducing or eliminating adverse impacts. The study report was also supposed to address the other water quality violations caused by Champion. A comprehensive study of the Perdido Bay system was undertaken by a team of 24 scientists lead by Dr. Robert Livingston, an aquatic ecologist and professor at Florida State University. The initial three-year study by Dr. Livingston's team of scientists was followed bya series of related scientific studies, which are referred to collectively in the RO as “the Livingston studies.” The 1989 Consent Order had no expiration date, but it was tied to the TOP, , which had an expiration date of December 1, 1994. Champion was to be in compliance with all applicable water quality standards by that date. The mill was not in compliance with all water quality standards in December 1 994. No enforcement action was taken by the Department and no modification of the 1989 Consent Order or TOP was formally proposed that would have provided a point of entry to any members of the public who might have objected. instead, the Department agreed through correspondence with . Champion to allow Champion to pursue additional water quality studies and to investigate alternatives to its discharge to Elevenmile Creek. - In 1994 and 1995, Champion applied to renew its state and federal wastewater permits, which were about to expire. The Department and EPA notified Champion that its existing permits were administratively extended during the review of the new permit applications. Today, the Cantonment mill is still operating under the 1989 TOP which, due to the administrative extension, did not terminate in December 1994, as stated on its face. In November 1 995, following EPA's delegation of NPDES permitting authority to the Department, the Department issued an order combining the state and federal ‘operating permits into a single permit identified as Wastewater Permit Number FLO002526-002-IWF/MT. During the period from 1992 to 2001, more water quality studies were conducted and Champion investigated alternatives to discharging into upper Elevenmile Creek, including land application of the effluent and relocation of the discharge to lower Elevenmiie Creek or the Escambia River. . In September 2002, while Champion's 1994 permit renewal application was still pending at DEP, IP submitted a revised permit renewal application to upgrade the WWTP and relocate its discharge. The WwTP upgrades consist of converting toa. modified activated sludge treatment process, incteasing aeration, constructing storm surge ponds, and adding a process for pH adjustment. The new WWTP would have an average daily effluent discharge of 23.8 million gallons per day (‘MGD’). IP proposes to convey the treated effluent by-pipeline 10.7 miles to the 1,464-acre wetland tract owned by IP (contained within-the larger Rainwater Tract), where the effluent would be distributed over the wetlands as it flows to lower Elevenmile Creek and Upper Perdido Bay. IP revised its permit application again in October 2005, to obtain authorization to: reconfigure the mill to produce unbleached brown paper for various grades of boxes. If the mill is reconfigured, only softwood (pine) would be used in the new process. On April 12, 2005, the Department published notice of its intent fo issue a proposed permit, consent order, experimental wetland exemption, and waiver. The — Department authorizations would allow IP to change its industrial wastewater treatment system at the mill, construct an effluent distribution system within the wetland tract, construct the 10.7-mile pipeline to transport its treated wastewater to the wetlands, and discharge the treated wastewater into the wetlands. In April 2005, Mellita A. Lane, Jacqueline M. Lane, Zachary P. Lane, Peter A. Lane, and Sarah M. Lane (“Lane Petitioners”) filed identical petitions challenging the Department authorizations on numerous grounds. The Department forwarded the petitions to DOAH for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The Lane Petitioners subsequently amended their petitions. In May 2005, Friends of Perdido Bay, Inc., and James Lane filed a petition for | hearing to challenge the Department authorizations. The FOPB petition was forwarded to DOAH and the pending cases were consolidated for the fi nal hearing. The FOPB petition was subsequently amended. In October 2005, while the cases were pending, IP applied for a revision to its NPDES permit renewal application. The cases were abated so that the DEP could review and act on the permit revision. In January 2006, DEP issued a proposed revised | NPDES permit and a corresponding First Amendment to Consent Order. On July 26, 2006, the Department filed without objection a revision to the Consent Order. On July 31, 2006, the Department filed Joint Trial Exhibit 18 that integrated the Consent Order dated April 12, 2005, the First Amendment to Consent Order dated January 11, 2006, and the Department’s Notice of Minor Revision {o Consent Order filed on July 26, 2006. The DOAH Administrative Law Judge CALL") held a lengthy final hearing in these consolidated cases on May 31, June 1, 2, and.26 through 30, and July 17, 27, and 28, 2006. Prior to the hearing, the parties filed their Joint Pre-Hearing sit on May 24, 2006. The ALJ subsequenty submitted his RO on May 11, 2007. -
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a dredge and fill permit be issued to Fairfield to fill 2.1 acres of wetlands and to create 2.1 acres of wetlands as mitigation, including the planting of Spartina to be maintained at an 80% survival rate for a period of five years and the provision of erosion control measures in and adjacent to Lake Avoca and St. Joseph's Sound. Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of February, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of Feburary, 1986. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent Fairfield have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended, except as noted below: Petitioner page 3, 3rd full paragraph, Rejected; not supported last sentence: by competent substantial evidence. page 4, 1st paragraph: Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. page 5, 1st full sentence: Accepted, but irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of any issue. pages 5 and 6, starting with Rejected; contrary to the 1st full paragraph: greater weight of the evidence. Respondent Fairfield page 4, 2nd full paragraph: Rejected; mere recitation of testimony and conclusions of law as opposed to factual findings. page 13, 1st paragraph: Rejected: irrelevant and immaterial. NOTE: Many of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent Fairfield constitute either recitations of testimony or legal conclusions. While these have not technically been rejected by the undersigned, they are not appropriate for the findings of fact section and are discussed in the conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Victoria Techinkel Secretary Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Mary f. Smallwood General Counsel Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 William W. Deane, Esquire Hanley and Deane, P.A. 465 Second Avenue North P. O. Box 7473 St. Petersburg, FL 33734 Julia D. Cobb Deborah Detzoff Richard Tucker 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Terry E. Lewis Steve Lewis Messer, Vickers, Caparello, French & Madsen P. O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, FL 32302 =============================================================== AGENCY FINAL ORDER =============================================================== STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CLEARWATER-UPPER PINELLAS COUNTY, Petitioner, v. DOAH CASE NO. 85-2755 DDT OGC FILE NO. 85-0822 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION and FAIRFIELD COMMUNITIES, INC., Respondents. /
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner owns Lot 5 on Saddlebunch Key in Monroe County, Florida. The lot is approximately 24 acres in size. It is located in a pristine area devoid of any exotic species. From west to east, Petitioner's property consists of: an approximately one acre low hammock, uplands area inhabited by buttonwood trees; a transition area slightly lower in elevation than the uplands area; a salt marsh area with key grass; a narrow mangrove area with mangroves between four and six feet tall; and an open water area. The first two hundred feet or so of the open water area has small coral sponges, sea grasses and algae on the bottom. Further out, the bottom is sandy with a minimal amount of vegetation. Among the species of birds that inhabit Petitioner's property and the surrounding area are the Little Blue Heron, White Ibis and Reddish Egret. The area is also the home of two endangered species, the Silver Rice Rat (which requires large expanses of undisturbed habitat such as that presently found in Saddlebunch Key) and the Lower Key Marsh Rabbit (which inhabits areas such as the transitional and marsh areas found on Petitioner's property). 1/ On April 20, 1992, Petitioner submitted to the Department an application for a permit to build a 1200 feet long/12 feet wide dock (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Dock") extending east from the uplands area of his property on Saddlebunch Key out into the open waters where the water depth is approximately four feet. The Proposed Dock will enable Petitioner (and his family, as well as visitors, both invited and uninvited) to more easily access the uplands area of his property, on which he plans to build a vacation home for his and his family's use. 2/ As a result of the closure and barricading of Sugarloaf Boulevard, there is no longer a route over dry land that Petitioner can take to get to the uplands. To reach the uplands, he must either walk through wetlands or navigate a boat through the shallow waters adjoining the uplands. Regardless of which means of access he chooses, the bottom (the mud and muck in which he steps when he travels by foot and the coral sponges, sea grasses and algae against which his boat scrapes when he travels by boat) is disturbed. 3/ The Proposed Dock will be located in a Class III, Outstanding Florida Water. On May 6, 1992, the Department, by letter, advised Petitioner that it had received his application and determined that it was incomplete. The letter specified the additional information and materials Petitioner needed to supply to make his application complete. On July 8, 1992, Petitioner provided the Department with additional information and materials in response to the request made by the Department in its May 6, 1992, letter. By letters dated July 20 and 21, 1992, the Department advised Petitioner that it had received his July 8, 1992, submission, but that, notwithstanding this submission, his application remained incomplete. The letters specified the additional information and materials Petitioner still needed to supply to make his application complete. On August 10, 1992, Petitioner provided the Department with additional information and materials in response to the request made by the Department in its July 20 and 21, 1992, letters. By letter dated August 18, 1992, the Department advised Petitioner that it had received his August 10, 1992, submission, but that, notwithstanding this submission, his application remained incomplete. The letter specified the additional information and materials Petitioner still needed to supply to make his application complete. On September 9, 1992, Petitioner provided the Department with additional information and materials in response to the request made by the Department in its August 18, 1992, letter. In his letter Petitioner requested that the Department "process [his] application." Less than 90 days later, on December 7, 1992, the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial. Petitioner has not provided reasonable assurance that the Proposed Dock will not degrade the quality of the water in and around the project site, nor has he provided reasonable assurance that the Proposed Dock is clearly in the public interest. Turbidity will occur during the construction of the Proposed Dock. When the holes into which the dock pilings will be placed are bored, the excavated material will become suspended and, if not contained, will flow with the current. The containment required will be substantial. The use of turbidity curtains is an accepted means of limiting turbidity. Although Petitioner has indicated that he will use turbidity curtains during the construction of the Proposed Dock, he has not indicated where they will be placed, how long they will remain in place and how they will be used. Turbidity has an adverse impact on the transparency of water (that is, the degree to which sunlight is able to penetrate the water). In and around the project site there is submerged vegetation that requires sunlight. If turbidity is not properly contained during construction, there will be a decrease in the transparency of the water in and around the project site and a resultant adverse impact on the biological function of the submerged vegetation in that area. Moreover, the Proposed Dock, when completed, will block sunlight and prevent this sunlight from reaching the submerged vegetation beneath the dock. Such shading will occur even though Petitioner has agreed to have one inch separations between the boards that will comprise the Proposed Dock's walkway. These separations will allow only a limited amount of sunlight to come through the dock. The amount of shading produced by the Proposed Dock will be substantial because the Proposed Dock will have an east/west alignment and therefore the sun will always be directly above it. 4/ Because the Proposed Dock will deprive the submerged vegetation beneath it of needed sunlight, the dock will have an adverse effect on such vegetation, as well as on the organisms that feed on such vegetation, and it will therefore reduce the diversity of life in the area. The reduction of the area's diversity of life will, in turn, adversely affect the biological integrity of the area. The activity associated with the construction and presence of the Proposed Dock and the vacation home that Petitioner will build if he is permitted to construct the Proposed Dock 5/ will flush birds that now inhabit Petitioner's property and the surrounding area, including the Little Blue Herons, White Ibises and Reddish Egrets, from their present habitat. This activity will also adversely affect other wildlife in the area, including, most significantly, the Silver Rice Rat and the Lower Key Marsh Rabbit, both of which are endangered species that will suffer from the invasion of the exotic species that will accompany the development of the area. In addition, the construction of the Proposed Dock will result in a loss of habitat for the Lower Key Marsh Rabbit. 6/ The Proposed Dock is intended to be a permanent structure and therefore its post-construction impacts will be of a long-lasting nature. It is reasonable to expect that other property owners in the vicinity of the Proposed Dock will seek a permit to construct a dock like Petitioner's if Petitioner is permitted to construct the Proposed Dock. These other projects, if they too are permitted, will have environmental consequences similar to those produced by the Proposed Dock. Although the Proposed Dock will enable Petitioner and his family to reach the uplands area of Petitioner's property without creating a disturbance on the bottom of the adjoining shallow waters, on balance, the Proposed Dock will have an adverse environmental impact on the uplands and surrounding area. The Proposed Dock's environmental disadvantages outweigh its environmental benefits. Petitioner has expressed a general willingness to make those modifications to his proposed project that will make the project permittable, but he has yet to make the modifications that will minimize the project's adverse environmental consequences. Mitigation of these consequences is a possibility. In the past, the Department has accepted both on-site and off-site mitigative measures. 7/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a dredge and fill permit to construct the Proposed Dock. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of December, 1995. STUART M. LERNER, 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 29th day of December, 1995.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates provided reasonable assurance that a modification to a conceptual surface water management permit complies with the permit criteria contained in statutes and rules.
Findings Of Fact Background This case involves a 900-acre parcel in the Loxahatchee Slough, west of the Florida Turnpike in Palm Beach County (County). Although the property occupies part of a slough, all of the wetlands in this case are isolated wetlands. Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates (Applicant) owns the south 503 acres, Petitioner owns the north 287 acres, and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (Village) owns the remaining 115 acres, which abut the southwest boundary of the north parcel. The acreages do not total 900 acres because the numbers are approximate. The 900-acre parcel is generally bounded on the south by Okeechobee Boulevard and the north and east by the M-1 canal. The west boundary of the south part of the parcel adjoins a residential development known as Loxahatchee Groves, and the 115-acre parcel adjoins a County-owned preserve of at least 600 acres. Applicant’s land is undeveloped except for some landclearing. Petitioner’s land is partly developed, mostly in the south next to the boundary with Applicant’s land. The Village's 115 acres are a preserve, divided equally between wetlands and uplands. On February 11, 1988, Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) issued surface water management (SWM) permit No. 50-00618-S-02 to Royal Palm Homes, Inc. for conceptual approval of a SWM system serving a residential development on the 900-acre parcel (1988 Permit). References to the Original Developer shall include Royal Palm Homes, Inc., its agents, lenders, and assigns, except for Petitioner and Applicant. The permitted development, which was known as the Royal Palm Homes PUD, comprises single-family and multifamily residences, wetland preserve areas, two 18-hole golf courses, and a park area. On August 3, 1994, Applicant filed SWM application number 940803-6 to modify the 1988 Permit to show the change in ownership and obtain conceptual approval of a modification to the permitted SWM system. The application was not complete when the new Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules replaced the old Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) permit rules. On May 24, 1996, the District transmitted the staff report, which proposed the issuance of a permit modification. On June 13, 1996, the District approved the issuance of the proposed permit modification. On the same date, Petitioner filed its petition challenging the proposed agency action. Permits The first relevant SWM permit for the 900-acre parcel involved a larger parcel that includes the 900-acre parcel. On September 14, 1978, the District issued a two-page permit authorizing the “construction of a water management system serving 2073 acres of residential lands by waterways discharging into canal C-51.” This 1978 permit, which is identified as number 50-00618-S, contains a special condition calling for a minimum finished floor elevation of 18.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The next permit is the 1988 Permit, which is a substantial modification to the 1978 permit. The 1988 Permit covers only the previously described 900 acres and, as modified, currently remains in effect. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of two large wetlands in the north parcel, just north of the 115-acre preserve; one wetland is about 30 acres and the other is about ten acres. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of no other wetlands in the north parcel, but, in addition to the wetlands in the 115-acre preserve, the 1988 Permit requires the preservation of several much smaller wetlands in the south parcel. The staff report for the 1988 Permit divides into three basins the drainage area for the 900-acre parcel: a north basin of 98.9 acres, a central basin of 525.7 acres, and a south basin of 270.8 acres. The staff report states that basin runoff will pass through a system of inlets and culverts into a series of interconnected lakes, from which, through control structures, the runoff will pass into the M-1 canal and eventually into the C-51 canal. The staff report notes that the control elevations will be 17.25 feet NGVD for the north basin, 17.55 feet NGVD for the central basin, and 17.75 feet NGVD for the south basin. Under the discussion of environmental impacts, the staff report observes that the 1978 permit proposed for protection only 30 acres of wetlands among the 281 acres of isolated wetlands on the site. The staff report notes that “extensive” melaleuca invasion has taken place since the 1978 permit and only 160 acres of wetlands remain in “relatively good” condition, with much of this subject to melaleuca encroachment. Due to the “extensive seed source” and “seasonal drying of the wetlands,” the staff report predicts eventual melaleuca dominance of the “entire site.” The staff report asserts that the proposed development plan includes the protection of about 100 acres of the “best quality wetlands,” plus eight acres of wetlands created in conjunction with the golf courses and 15 acres of wetlands created as littoral zones in conjunction with the lakes to be constructed. The staff report calls a program “to eradicate all melaleuca from the site” “[t]he major environmental feature” of the proposed development plan. But this major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit is presently in jeopardy. One major component of the present case is that, following the conveyances of the three parcels by the Original Developer, the District has evidently concluded that no one is responsible to perform certain obligations under the 1988 Permit and no remedies are available for the nonperformance of these obligations. It appears that these conclusions are largely driven by the vagueness of the plan to eradicate the melaleuca. This plan is called the "Melaleuca Eradication Plan." The Melaleuca Eradication Plan is incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan, which is dated December 11, 1987, recounts that the Original Developer and regulatory bodies agreed that the melaleuca should be “eradicated and a program for this should be developed and included as a part of the permit application.” The plan states that the eradication plan will cover the entire 900- acre site with the Original Developer performing the “initial . . . program” on the entire site, including the 115-acre preserve to be deeded to the Village. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan calls for the Original Developer to create a bonded authority to conduct the “ten-year melaleuca eradication program.” The program is phased to coincide with the projected 10-year buildout of the 3000-unit parcel. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan describes in detail the three phases of the program and exactly how the Original Developer will proceed to remove the melaleuca and restore wetlands by planting native wetland species in disturbed areas. The plan promises a yearly inspection followed by hand-removal of any seedlings discovered on the site. This last phase will terminate ten years after commencement of the first phase. A “Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program” is also incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which is dated December 8, 1987, states that Dr. Dwight Goforth performed a wetlands survey of the 900-acre site in 1985 and divided wetlands into three categories based on their quality. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance promises the preservation of 112.71 acres of wetlands comprising 98.81 acres of “large wetlands totally preserved” and nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres that will be “partially preserved.” Also, the program will create golf course wetlands of 6.93 acres and littoral-zone wetlands around the lakes of 15 acres. Thus, the program summarizes, the “total wetland acreage preserved, enhanced and created will [be] 134.64 acres.” The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program describes a three-year monitoring program using transects to assist in the vegetative mapping of the site. The program also promises semiannual observations of birds, small rodents, and larger mammals using the wetlands and adjacent preserved uplands, as well as semiannual sampling for fish, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program outlines a plan to remove melaleuca and control algae buildup in the lakes. The program promises to contain algae through the use of “biological controls” and, when needed, hand-raking. The program also assures that the Original Developer will use a “conservative fertilization program” for the golf course and landscaped areas to reduce eutrophication in the created lakes. On February 18, 1988, the District issued its conceptual approval of the 1988 Permit. Among the special conditions of the 1988 Permit are Special Condition 15, which requires wetland monitoring and maintenance in accordance with the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, and Special Condition 16, which requires melaleuca removal in accordance with the Melaleuca Eradication Plan. Also, Special Condition 17 requires low berms around protected or created wetlands, including littoral zones, to protect against sheetflow runoff from the golf course or other areas of intense development. The references in the preceding paragraphs to the responsibilities of the "Original Developer" imply greater clarity than is present in the Melaleuca Eradication Plan or Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The passive voice predominates in both these documents, so it is sometimes difficult to determine on whom a particular responsibility falls. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan states clearly that "[the Original Developer] will conduct the initial melaleuca eradication on the entire site including the dedicated park area [i.e., the 115 acres]." The next sentence of the plan contemplates the conveyance of the 115 acres to the County. But, after these clear provisions, the Melaleuca Eradication Plan lapses into the passive voice almost invariably. The next two sentences read, "A bonded authority will be created to conduct the ten-year melaleuca eradication program" and "The eradication program will be carried out through a bonded agreement with the [Original] Developer to remove the melaleuca . . .." Alluding to the several phases of melaleuca eradication, the plan states only "[t]he eradication program will be completed in stages " Only two other sentences establishing responsibility for melaleuca eradication identify the responsible party. The end of the plan states that the "bonded authority responsible for initial eradication clearance will likewise provide a yearly inspection." One of the final sentences of the plan adds: "the bonding authority's crew will hand remove entire seedlings found on site." The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program is similar except that it does not once name the entity responsible for the monitoring and maintenance duties or hiring the firm or individual to conduct the actual work. The two special conditions incorporating these two documents likewise are in the passive voice, implying only that the responsibility belongs to the Original Developer. Given the vagueness of the melaleuca-eradication and wetlands-maintenance documents, it is not surprising that they fail entirely to address the issue whether these responsibilities run with the land, remain the responsibility of the Original Developer, or, for the eradication of melaleuca, remain the duty of the "bonded authority," if the Original Developer ever created such an entity, which appears highly doubtful. The documents likewise do not disclose the penalties for noncompliance. On June 16, 1988, the District issued a modification to the 1988 Permit for the construction and operation of a 110.9-acre residential development in Phase I, which occupies the central basin. On October 1, 1988, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) issued the Original Developer a permit to destroy 164 acres of wetlands on the 900-acre parcel. Special conditions of the 1988 Army Corps permit require the preservation of "115 acres of high quality wetlands," the creation of 18 acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral shelf, and the implementation of a "Melaleuca Eradication Program," which is the same program as is incorporated in the 1988 Permit. The 1988 Army Corps permit contains an attachment dated October 24, 1987. This attachment identifies the protected wetlands as the two large wetlands in the north parcel totaling about 40 acres, 58 acres in the 115-acre preserve, and 53.5 acres in the south parcel. The 1988 Army Corps permit protects several wetlands in the south parcel, including wetland numbers 14 (3.04 acres), 16 (1.6 acres), 23 (0.53 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 44 (0.8 acres), 29 (1.08 acres), and 46 (3.0 acres). These wetlands, which total 12.65 acres, are seven of the nine wetlands partially preserved in the 1988 Permit, although some of the acreages vary from those preserved in the 1988 Permit. Unlike the District's permits (except for the subject proposed permit modification), the 1988 Army Corps permit addresses conveyances by the developer. The 1988 Army Corps permit states: "If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization." Below the signature line of the 1988 Army Corps permit is language stating: When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below. On March 1, 1989, the Original Developer conveyed the 115-acre preserve to the Village, which later leased the preserve to the County. The Original Developer had not eradicated the melaleuca at the time of the conveyance, nor has anyone since done so. On August 17, 1990, water elevations in the wetlands in Phase I reached 19.4 feet NGVD, washing out construction pads, roads, and in-ground utilities. On September 7, 1990, the District issued a stop-work request because the SWM system was not working as required. On September 28, 1990, the District approved interim measures to preserve the wetland hydroperiod and allow for wetland overflow. These measures include berming the residential areas in Phase I/Plat I adjacent to wetlands. On June 13, 1991, the District approved additional modifications to the 1988 Permit and the construction and operations permit for Phase I and issued a conceptual approval for works in the north and central basins. The revisions to the conceptual approval include adding two control structures to the north wetland that connect to the water management system in the north basin and adding a berm around the smaller of the two preserved wetlands in the north parcel. The construction approval was for a perimeter berm along the south wetland and park areas. On June 24, 1992, the District issued a staff report recommending issuance of another modification of the 1988 Permit for the conceptual approval of a SWM system to serve the 900-acre parcel and approval of construction and operation of a SWM system to isolate and control the existing onsite wetlands and revise the control structure for the central basin. The staff report explains that this modification proposes berming the wetlands to the 100-year, three-day peak elevation. The staff report notes that the wetlands basin consists of 295.18 acres of wetlands, including 155.85 acres of “wetlands/uplands.” The staff report notes that the north basin contains 107.41 acres of “good quality wet prairie wetlands” with “minimal” melaleuca encroachment. The staff report restates that the purpose of the modification is to berm all of the wetlands and uplands not planned for development. Special Condition 19 requires the Original Developer to dedicate as conservation and common areas in deed restrictions the “wetland preservation/mitigation areas, upland buffer zones, and/or upland preservation areas," so that these areas are the “perpetual responsibility” of a named property owners’ association. Special Condition 22 states that “a wetland monitoring and maintenance program” and “a melaleuca eradication program” “shall be implemented,” but the condition does not expressly state by whom. Special Condition 22 requires that the work implementing these programs conform to these “approved environmental programs as outlined in the [1988 Permit].” Special Condition 25 provides that, on submittal of an application for construction approval in the south basin (Phase II), the "permittee shall submit a detailed wetland construction mitigation, monitoring and maintenance plan.” In evaluating the plan for approval, the District shall apply the “environmental criteria in effect at the time of construction permit application.” Although the approval of the District is not attached to the staff report, the District approved the June 24, 1992, staff report and proposed permit. The 1992 permit modification did not address the issue of who was responsible for melaleuca eradication after the sale of the property. On November 10, 1993, the staff report accompanying another request for a permit modification restates the special conditions of earlier permit modifications. Special Condition 23 restates the requirement that a melaleuca eradication program “shall be implemented,” again not stating by whom. Special Condition 23 now requires the completion of the melaleuca eradication program by February 25, 1994. The omission of a referenced exhibit to the permit from the exhibit filed in this case prevents a determination that this is the same as the Melaleuca Eradication Plan incorporated in the 1988 Permit and restated in the 1992 modification, although it probably is. In any event, Special Condition 23 concludes in another sentence lacking a stated or implied subject: “Maintenance of the preserved wetlands and berm planting areas shall be conducted in perpetuity to ensure that the conservation areas are maintained free from exotic vegetation (Brazilian pepper, Australian pine and melaleuca) . . ..” Although the record does not contain the written approval of the District to the staff report, the District approved the staff report dated November 10, 1993. On November 12, 1993, the Original Developer conveyed by special warranty deed the north to Petitioner. The deed is subject only to "easements, declarations, restrictions and reservations of record . . .." The record does not provide recording information for the deed. The Original Developer probably conveyed the south parcel to Applicant in the same fashion and at the same approximate time. Almost five months later, on March 29, 1994, the Army Corps issued another permit for the 900-acre parcel. Although the Original Developer had conveyed at least the north parcel, the Army Corps issued the 1994 permit to the Original Developer. The 1994 Army Corps permit authorizes the destruction of 158 acres. The general conditions governing transfers are the same as those in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The special conditions of the 1994 Army Corps permit require the permittee to preserve and enhance only 110 acres of high quality wetlands, instead of preserving 115 acres of such wetlands, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The 1994 Army Corps permit drops the requirement of creating eight acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral zone, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit, but requires the preservation of what appears to be the 39.5-acre preserve that is proposed by Applicant in the subject permit modification, as described below. Special Condition 3 of the 1994 Army Corps permit adds that all preserved areas "will be maintained in perpetuity free of Melaleuca. The permittee agrees to develop a bonded Melaleuca eradication program for the entire 906 acres. Copies of the bonded agreement will be provided to this office for approval before development can commence." The next permit activity affecting the 900-acre parcel is the subject application filed by Applicant on August 3, 1994, for its 503-acre parcel. On May 24, 1996, the District issued a staff report for conceptual approval of a SWM system proposed by Applicant for its 503-acre parcel. On June 13, 1996, the District issued an addendum to the staff report that contains another special condition that is not especially relevant to this case. In the background section, the staff report mentions the flooding of Phase I of the north parcel and states that the District had “assumed the adjacent wetlands would flow away from the development.” The staff report outlines the modifications implemented to eliminate the flooding; these modifications include connecting the M-1 canal, through inlets, with several wetlands located in the north and central basins. According to the staff report, Petitioner’s north parcel, which totals 287.34 acres, includes the Phase I/Plat 1 area, north basin, and part of central basin south of Phase I. Describing Applicant’s proposal, the staff report states that a preserve of 39.5 acres will be located in the northwest corner of the south parcel, adjoining the east boundary of the 115-acre parcel. The staff report states that the 39.5-acre preserve will sheetflow through cuts in the berm to wetlands in the 115-acre preserve. The 115-acre preserve is connected to the SWM system permitted on November 10, 1993, to eliminate flooding from these wetlands, whose control elevation is 19 feet NGVD. The staff report describes the south parcel as “dominated by flatwood habitat,” within which are stands of Australian pine and other exotic plant species that have recently been spreading across the site. The onsite wetlands are 4.93 acres of wet prairies, 18.4 acres of pond cypress strands, 1.56 acres of isolated marsh, 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwood, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca. The staff report finds that only the 4.93 acres of wet prairies and 18.4 acres of cypress are in good condition, but melaleuca has become established in many of the wet prairies. The 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes and 163.91 acres of melaleuca are in poor condition. The 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwoods are in fair condition. As for listed species, the staff report mentions only the possibility that herons might forage onsite during periods of standing water. Summarizing the impact of the proposed project on wetlands preservation, the staff report endorses the hydrologic reconnection of the 39.5-acre wetland/upland site with the 115-acre wetland. The staff report notes that water levels in the 115-acre preserve, which has been bermed to 21 feet NGVD, have stabilized at 19 feet NGVD. The staff report asserts that the “proposed wetland impacts (183.54 acres) were previously permitted under the conceptual permit application” for the original 1988 Permit. The staff report adds that this modification is to “change a portion of the original mitigation requirements . . . and includes impacts to a 6.78 acre wetland area that was previously permitted to be preserved.” But the staff report does not recommend the preservation of this wetland “[d]ue to the reduced hydrology and proximity to the proposed upland development” and the mitigation and compensation provided by the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report states that 8.76 acres of the 39.5- acre preserve are wetlands, and the remainder are uplands. As for the 8.76 acres of wetlands, the staff report lists 0.67 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods, 4.93 acres of wet prairies, and 3.16 acres of cypress. Applicant would also restore 4.95 acres of pine flatwoods. As for the 183.54 acres of wetlands to be destroyed, the staff report lists 2.83 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods in fair condition, 15.24 acres of cypress in fair condition, 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes in poor condition, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca in poor condition. Addressing the mitigation and monitoring elements of the current proposal, the staff report states that the modification would eliminate the creation of 15 acres of littoral wetlands around SWM lakes and 7.99 acres of marshes in golf courses in return for the creation of the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report assures that Applicant will perpetually manage and maintain the 115-acre preserve. Conceding that the 1988 Permit also required long-term maintenance of the 115-acre parcel, the staff report notes that the initial eradication effort was never completed. The staff report mentions an “access agreement” giving Applicant the authority to enter the 115-acre preserve for mitigation and monitoring, but “anticipat[es]” that Applicant will submit an application for another permit modification, on behalf of the two governmental entities, so that Applicant can “assume future maintenance responsibilities for this area.” As is clarified by the maintenance and monitoring plan, which is part of the proposed permit, Applicant's expectation is that the County and Village, not Applicant, will assume future maintenance responsibilities for the 115-acre preserve. The staff report concludes that the District should issue the permit subject to various conditions. Special Condition 1 is that the minimum building floor elevation is 20 feet NGVD. Special Condition 16 requires the implementation of a wetland mitigation program and requires Applicant to create 4.95 acres of marsh; restore 3.16 acres of cypress, 4.93 acres of marsh, and 0.67 acres of mixed forest; and protect 25.79 acres of uplands. Special Condition 17 sets performance criteria for the mitigation areas in terms of percentage and length of survival of vegetation. Special Condition 17 supplies completion dates for monitoring reports. Special Condition 21 addresses listed species. Noting that listed species have been seen onsite or the site contains suitable habitat for such species, Special Condition 21 requires Applicant to coordinate with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission or the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for guidance, recommendations, or permits to avoid impacts to such species. The monitoring and maintenance plan does not address direct and contingent liabilities for maintenance and generally is a poor candidate for enforcement. In addition to the vagueness of the passive voice, the plan is, at times, simply unreadable, as, for example, when it concludes boldly, but enigmatically: The site as a whole is evolving hydrologic trends which permits successional seres development toward communities with shorter hydroperiods and ultimately, toward more upland transitional and/or exotic species dominance of historically wetland habitats. Long-term prospectives infer that successional deflection has become a severe detriment for natural environmental control to alter the present scenario. Active management coupled with graduated balanced in hydrologic restoration and created habitat elements will become the processes engineered to obtain an infusion of probabilities fashioned to inscribe a regenerative adaptation to the present site condition while fostering in situ processes, to optimize derived functions, for the maintenance of both habitat and wildlife over the long-term existence of the Preserve. (Sic.) Water Quality Impacts Petitioner does not contend in its proposed recommended order that the proposed project fails to meet applicable requirements regarding water quality. Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed permit modification would not violate State water quality standards. Flooding Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding water quantity and flooding. However, Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the project would not violate these requirements. There are several aspects to a SWM system. Undeveloped land stores and conveys rainfall through soil and surface storage. An artificial SWM system alters the undeveloped land’s storage capacity by the addition of a storage and drainage system, such as, in this case, conveying water through the soil into storm drains and then to lakes to store surface runoff prior to release, through an outfall structure, into a receiving body of water--in this case, the M-1 canal. The SWM system hastens the conveyance of stormwater runoff offsite. The control elevation of a SWM system is the height at which water in the lakes will flow through the outfall structure into the receiving body of water. Except during the dry season, the control elevation tends to establish not only the water level of the SWM lakes, but also of the nearby water table. The hastening of drainage offsite with the establishment of control elevations produce the drawdown effect of SWM systems. As to flooding, the basic underlying dispute between Petitioner and Respondents is whether to use the pre- or post- development depth to water table. In determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on wetlands, one would project the effect of any post-development drawdown on the wetlands themselves and their functions and inhabitants. It would be illogical not to do the same in determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on flooding. Pre-development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property is as little as two feet. Post- development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property will be five feet, which is the difference between the control elevation of 14 feet NGVD and ground elevation of 19 feet NGVD. Petitioner’s evidence concerning flooding is flawed because its expert witness based his calculations on an average depth to water table of two feet on Applicant’s property. He did not adjust for the considerable drawdown effect of the SWM system. The District table allows for no more than four feet between the water table and ground, so there is an added margin of safety in the ensuing flooding calculations. Another important factor in the flooding calculations is the soil type in terms of permeability. The District properly characterized the prevailing soils as flatwoods, and the soils onsite are in the category of “good drainage.” Applicant’s suggestion that flooding calculations use the post-development soils is rejected. Post-development depths to water table are used because they can be calculated to predict post-development conditions accurately. Applicant produced no proof that it would replace such massive amounts of soil from the site with more permeable soils so as to justify reclassifying the soil type. The District's flooding calculations probably overstate the risk of flooding in the three-day, 100-year design storm because they ignore lake bank storage, which is the additional amount of water that a lake can store in its sloped banks above the typical water elevation. The District could have relied on the effect of lake bank storage for additional assurance that the proposed project will not result in flooding. The proposed project contains a large number of long, narrow lakes, which will thus have a relatively high percentage of lake banks to lake area. Additionally, the District has raised the minimum floor elevation at this site by two feet over 18 years. Whatever other effects may follow from this trend, the higher floor elevation offers additional protection to onsite improvements. The flooding of Petitioner’s property seven years ago understandably is a matter of concern to Petitioner. Applicant proposes to change the configuration of drainage basins, but the District has adequately addressed the drainage issue, and this is not the first time in the 20-year permitting history of this property that the District has approved a reconfiguration of basins. Also, in the 1988 Permit, the District incorrectly projected the direction of runoff under certain conditions. However, the flooding was partly due to inadequate road- drainage facilities. Following the flooding, the Original Developer enlarged these features and bermed the flooding wetlands, so as to eliminate the flooding of developed areas due to design storm events. On balance, Applicant has proved that the proposed permit modification would not adversely affect flooding or water quantity. Environmental Impacts A. Wetlands Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding environmental impacts to wetlands. Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed work would not violate these requirements. There are two major deficiencies in the District's analysis of wetland impacts and mitigation or compensation. First, the proposed permit modification includes mitigation or compensation in the form of melaleuca removal. But prior permits have already required the same work, no one has ever done the work, and the District does not know if these permit requirements are still enforceable. Second, the proposed permit modification ignores 13.9 acres of preserved wetlands in the 1988 Permit, allowing their destruction without mitigation or compensation. The permitting process requires the District to balance the impacts of development and mitigation or compensation on the natural resources under the District's jurisdiction. Balancing these impacts in issuing the 1988 Permit, the District required the complete eradication of melaleuca in return for permitting the residential, institutional, and recreational development proposed by the Original Developer. District staff, not the Original Developer or Petitioner, called the Melaleuca Eradication Plan “the major environmental feature” of the development plan approved by the 1988 Permit. The major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit clearly justified significant development impacts on natural resources. To justify additional development impacts on natural resources, the District now proposes to count again another developer’s promise to eradicate the melaleuca. The District claims that the term of the original melaleuca protection plan was only ten years, not perpetual as is presently proposed. However, the District's claim ignores Special Condition 23 in the 1993 permit modification. This condition set a deadline of February 25, 1994, for the eradication of melaleuca and made perpetual the requirement that one or more of the potentially responsible parties--the Original Developer, Petitioner, Applicant, the bonded authority, the property owners' association, or transferees-- maintain the wetlands free of melaleuca and other exotics. Unfortunately, this “major environmental feature” of the 1988 Permit, as well as subsequent permit modifications, was so poorly drafted as to leave potentially responsible parties unsure of their legal obligations. The District tacitly suggests that it cannot enforce the obligations imposed by the 1988 Permits and later modifications for the eradication of melaleuca. But there is presently no reason for the District to resort again to permitting without first reviewing carefully its enforcement options. The District should first determine whether anyone will voluntarily assume these obligations. As a business consideration, Petitioner may choose to eradicate the melaleuca from the north parcel and 115-acre preserve to prevent Applicant from providing this service and claiming that it should receive compensation credit against additional environmental impacts permitted by a modification of the 1988 Permit. Maybe the County or Village has already budgeted funds for this work. If no party offers to perform the necessary work, the District must next determine its legal rights and the legal obligations of these parties. Depending on the results of this research, the District may need to consider litigation and the cessation of the issuance of construction and operation permits on the 900-acre parcel or either the north or south parcel. At this point, the District should discuss joint litigation or permit revocation with the Army Corps, whose 1994 permit requires the permittee to develop a bonded melaleuca-eradication program and apparently imposes on the permittee the responsibility to maintain all preserved areas free of melaleuca. Only after having exhausted these options may the District legitimately conclude that melaleuca eradication on any part of the 900 acres represents fair compensation for the development impacts on jurisdictional natural resources. The second major problem as to wetlands impacts concerns the calculation of wetlands acreages to be destroyed by the proposed permit. The 1988 Permit expressly incorporates the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. This program, as an operative part of the 1988 Permit, represents that the developer will “partially preserve. . .” nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres. The partial preservation of wetlands does not mean that a five-acre wetland will remain a five-acre wetland, except that its function will be impaired. Partial preservation means that, for instance, two acres of a five- acre wetland will be preserved. It is impossible for the District to have required mitigation to offset the destruction of these 13.9 acres of wetlands because the District denies that the 1988 Permit required the partial preservation of these nine wetlands. As noted below, neither the District nor Applicant can identify all of the wetlands that make up the 13.9 acres. Rather than account for these wetlands that were to have been partially preserved, the District instead contends that this undertaking by the Original Developer was ineffective or nonbinding because it was overriden by contrary statements in the staff report. Not so. The specific provisions delineating the preserved wetlands area in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was prepared by the Original Developer, override more general statements contained in the staff report accompanying the permit. There is not necessarily a conflict between the staff report and the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The staff report states that the plan “includes the protection of approximately 100 acres of the best quality wetlands,” together with the creation of eight acres of golf course wetlands and 15 acres of lake littoral zones. The plan “includes” these wetlands among those preserved or created; the word suggests that the list is not exhaustive, but only illustrative. Alternatively, if the list were exhaustive, the preservation of “approximately” 100 acres reasonably encompasses the 112.71 acres of partially or totally preserved wetlands cited in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. More to the point, on October 26, 1987, Donald Wisdom, the engineer handling the 1988 Permit, prepared a memorandum for the file stating that the total acreage of wetlands to be preserved or created was 134.45. This figure represents an insignificant deviation of 0.19 acres from the total listed in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was dated six weeks later, on December 8, 1987. In the October 26 memorandum, Mr. Wisdom describes the preserved wetlands as 111.46 acres of A- and B-quality wetlands. This is 1.25 acres less than the acreage in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. These small discrepancies were eliminated by November 18, 1987, when Mr. Wisdom wrote a memorandum noting that the program called for the total preservation of 98.81 acres and partial preservation of 13.9 acres. Adding the created wetlands, the new total for preserved or created wetlands was 134.64 acres. A month later, a District employee wrote a memorandum to the file, expressing his “main concern” that the proposed development would protect only 99 acres of wetlands. It is unclear why the employee mentioned only the 98.81 acres slated for preservation. Perhaps he was confused or mistaken. But the misgivings of a single employee do not constitute the rejection by the District of a developer's proposal to preserve nearly 14 acres of high-quality wetlands. The staff report for the 1988 Permit notes that the 900-acre site contained about 281 acres of wetlands. If the 1988 Permit required the preservation, as an entire wetland or part of a larger wetland, of 112 acres of wetlands, then the 1988 Permit allowed the destruction of 169 acres, which is consistent with the 164 and 158 acres allowed to be destroyed by the 1988 and 1994 Army Corps permits. However, by the 1996 permit modification, the staff report refers, without explanation or justification, to the permitted destruction of 183.54 acres of wetlands--evidently adding the 13.9 acres to the 169 acres previously permitted to be destroyed. Tab 13 of the Wisdom bluebook identifies the nine wetlands constituting the 13.9 acres, which are entirely in Applicant's south parcel. Except for three, all of these wetlands were characterized as A-quality, meaning that they are in good to excellent condition and “have not been stressed significantly from the biological viewpoint.” B-quality wetlands are in disturbed condition and “are in various stages of biological stress caused primarily by a lowered water table and/or melaleuca invasion.” C-quality wetlands are highly disturbed and “are substantially degraded biologically.” The 13.9 acres of wetlands comprise wetland numbers 23 (0.5 acres), 46 (0.4 acres), 44 (0.6 acres), 37 (0.4 acres), 29 (1.1 acres), 20 [sometimes misreported as 21] (3.9 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 16 (1.5 acres), and 14 (2.9 acres). Wetland numbers 46 and 29 are B-quality, and wetland number 20 is C-quality. The wetlands shown in District Exhibit 4 and Applicant Exhibit 3 inaccurately portray the wetlands constituting the missing 13.9 acres. A internal memorandum to the file notwithstanding, the District predicated the 1988 Permit in part on the preservation of 112.71 acres of functioning wetlands, including the 13.9 acres that the District now disclaims. The mitigation and compensation required of Applicant in the present case ignored the destruction of these wetlands. The District's analysis of mitigation and compensation in this case was fatally flawed by these two deficiencies. But more deficiencies exist in the District's analysis of wetland impacts. The District relied on faulty data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. Undercounting the extent of wetlands by at least 21 acres and their condition by an indeterminable amount, Applicant presented to the District a materially inaccurate picture of the wetland resources on the south parcel. Despite disclaimers to the contrary, the District relied on this inaccurate data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. There are possible problems with 39.5-acre preserve offered by Applicant. This parcel contains less than nine acres of wetlands, including two wetlands that Applicant may already be required to preserve under the 1994 Army Corps permit. At the same time, Applicant's proposal may include the destruction of a third wetland that is to be preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. The best rendering in the record of the 1994 Army Corps permit may be Applicant Exhibit 4, which shows eight large wetland areas to be “preserved/enhanced/created.” Two of these are the 10- and 30-acre wetlands on Petitioner’s property, which were preserved in the 1988 Permit. Three of the eight wetlands are in the 115-acre preserve; these were also preserved in the 1988 Permit. The remaining three wetlands to be preserved, enhanced, or created under the 1994 Army Corps permit are in the north end of Applicant’s property. It is difficult to estimate acreage given the scale of the drawing, but the two westerly wetlands are about 4-5 acres each and the easterly wetland is 3-3.5 acres. Subtracting the total preserved acreage of 110 from the acreage identified in the preceding paragraph, the total acreage of these remaining three wetlands is about 12. The two westerly wetlands are in the 39.5-acre preserve that Applicant offers as mitigation in the present case. According to Applicant Exhibit 6, the easterly wetland, or at least the most valuable part of it--the center--is slated for destruction if the District grants the subject permit modification. The proposed destruction of the third wetland is a matter of greater interest to the Army Corps than to the District, but the offer to preserve the other two wetlands really does not provide anything in return for the permitted development impacts because these two wetlands are already preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. As the District and Applicant contend, golf course marshes and littoral zones are typically of little environmental importance. Although the 1988 Permit addresses some of these problems, although without supplying any performance standards, golf courses themselves are often conduits of fertilizers and pesticides into the groundwater and nearby surface water. The District and Applicant justifiably question the value of the golf courses approved in the 1988 Permit as wildlife corridors. It is unclear what wildlife would use the corridor, which is surrounded by residential development and bounded by Okeechobee Boulevard. Other factors also militate in favor of Applicant's proposal. But, as the record presently stands, there is no way to find that Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed development and related mitigation and compensation, as described in the subject permit modification, meet the applicable criteria. The District substantially undervalued the environmental impacts of the proposed modification while substantially overvaluing the environmental impacts of Applicant's proposed contributions in the form of mitigation and compensation. To find adequate assurance as to wetland impacts in these circumstances, where the District did not perform an informed balancing of various impacts in a large-scale development, would permit the District to transform the unavoidably imprecise task of balancing wetland impacts into an act of pure, unreviewable discretion. Listed Species The only relevant listed species onsite is the gopher tortoise, which is a species of special concern. Gopher tortoises use the site to an undetermined extent. Applicant's suggestion that someone brought the tortoises to the site is rejected as improbable. However, due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant provided reasonable assurance as to the value of functions provided to wildlife and listed species by wetlands. Procedural Issues A. Standing Petitioner has standing due most obviously to flooding considerations. Additionally, the SWM system permitted in 1988 is for the entire 900-acre parcel, of which Petitioner’s parcel is a part. Applicability of ERP Rules The proposed permit modification would substantially affect water resources. The proposed permit modification would substantially increase the adverse effect on water resources. Requirement to Delineate Wetlands Due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant met applicable requirements concerning the delineation of wetlands. Improper Purpose Petitioner did not challenge the proposed permit modification for an improper purpose. Relevant Provisions of Basis of Review The District revised its Basis of Review after the adoption of ERP rules. Although the order concludes that the District should have applied the ERP rules, and thus the ERP Basis of Review, the order shall discuss both versions of the Basis of Review because the District ignored numerous provisions of both documents in approving Applicant's request for a permit modification. Section 4.6 MSSW Basis of Review requires the District to consider "actual impact" to the site by "considering the existing natural system as altered by the proposed project[,]" including "positive and negative environmental impacts." Section 4.6 requires the District to "balance" these impacts "to achieve a reasonable degree of protection for significant environmental features consistent with the overall protection of the water resources of the District." The proposed permit modification fails to comply with several provisions of Appendix 7 of the MSSW Basis of Review, such as Sections 4.2 requiring a detailed description of the isolated wetlands to be destroyed; 5.1.1(d) favoring the protection of isolated wetlands over their destruction, mitigation, and compensation, which are considered "only when there are no feasible project design alternatives"; and 5.1.6 prohibiting the alteration of water tables so as to affect adversely isolated wetlands. The proposed permit modification also violates various provisions of the ERP Basis of Review. Section 4.0 of the ERP Basis of Review sets the goal of permitting to be "no net loss in wetland . . . functions." Sections 4.2 and following generally require balancing. Section 4.2.1 predicates District approval on a showing that the SWM system does not cause a "net adverse impact on wetland functions . . . which is not offset by mitigation." The ERP provisions first require that the District "explore" with an applicant the minimization of impacts prior to considering mitigation. Section 4.2.2.4(c) specifically imposes monitoring requirements for SWM systems that "could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands." Sections 4.3.2.2 and following discuss mitigation ratios under the ERP Basis of Review. If the District can explicate a policy to count as mitigation wetlands acreage already preserved under Army Corps permits, the ratios in this case might warrant further consideration, assuming Applicant resubmits an application for permit modification. But it would be premature to consider the ratios on the present record for several reasons. The District has not proved such a policy. If such a policy counts such wetland acreage, on the theory that the District protects function and the Army Corps protects merely the wetland, the record is insufficiently developed as to the functions of the wetlands proposed for protection, as well as the functions of the 13.9 acres of wetlands proposed for destruction. Also, the District has not sufficiently explored project minimization, as is now required under the ERP Basis of Review.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order denying Applicant's request for a permit modification. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 13, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 13, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey D. Kneen John F. Mariani J. Barry Curtain Levy Kneen 1400 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ronald K. Kolins Thomas A. Sheehan, III Moyle Flanigan Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John J. Fumero Marcy I. LaHart Office of Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Samuel E. Poole, III Executive Director Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
The Issue The issues are whether to (a) issue an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Martin County (County) authorizing construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve a project known as the Indian Street Bridge; (b) issue DOT a letter of modification of ERP No. 43-00785-S authorizing roadway and drainage modifications to the Kanner Highway/Indian Street intersection; and (c) issue DOT a letter of modification of ERP No. 43-01229-P authorizing roadway and drainage modifications to Indian Street between the intersections of Kanner Highway and Willoughby Boulevard.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties Petitioner Citizens for Smart Growth, Inc., is a Florida 501(c)(3) corporation with its principal place of business in Palm City, Florida. It was formed by Odias Smith in August 2001, who serves as its president. The original directors were Kathie Smith, Odias Smith, and Craig Smith, who is the Smiths' son. The composition of the Board has never changed. According to the original Articles of Incorporation, its objectives are "preserving and enhancing the present advantages of living in Martin County (Quality of Life) for the common good, through public education, and the encouragement of reasonable and considered decision making by full disclosure of impacts and alternatives for the most appropriate use of land, water and resources." The exact number of members fluctuates from time to time. There are no dues paid by any member. At his deposition, Mr. Smith stated that no membership list exists; however, Kathie Smith stated that she currently has a list of 125 names, consisting of persons who at one time or another have made a contribution, have attended a meeting, or asked to be "kept informed of what's going on or asked to be on a mailing list or a telephone list, so they could be advised when we have meetings." No meetings have been held since 2006. Therefore, the Petitions filed in these cases have never been discussed at any meetings of the members, although Ms. Smith indicated that telephone discussions periodically occur with various individuals. Kathie Smith believes that roughly 25 percent of the members reside in a mobile home park north of the project site on Kanner Highway on the eastern side of the St. Lucie River, she does not know how many members reside on the western side of the St. Lucie River, and she is unaware of any member who resides on the South Fork of the St. Lucie River immediately adjacent to the project. Although the three Petitions allege that "seventy percent of the members . . . reside and/or recreate on the St. Lucie River," and in greater detail they allege how those members use that water body or depend on it for their livelihood, no evidence was submitted to support these allegations that 70 percent (or any other percentage of members) use or depend on the South Fork of the St. Lucie River for recreational or other activities. Petitioners Odias Smith and Cathie Smith reside in Palm City, an unincorporated community just south of Stuart in Martin County. They have opposed the construction of the new bridge since they moved to Palm City in 2001. It is fair to infer that Mr. Smith formed the corporation primarily for the purpose of opposing the bridge. Their home faces north, overlooking the South Fork of the St. Lucie River, from which it is separated by Saint Lucie Shores Drive and a narrow strip of common-ownership property. A boat dock extends from the common-ownership property into the St. Lucie River, providing 5 slips for use by the Smiths and other co-owners. The home is located three blocks or approximately 1,000 feet from the proposed western landfall of the new bridge. Due to the direction that the house faces (north) and the site of the new bridge, the surface water management system elements associated with the bridge will not be visible from their property. Mr. Smith believes, however, that when looking south through a veranda window on the second floor of his home, he will be able to see at least a part of the new bridge. From the front of their house, they now have an unobstructed view of the existing Palm City Bridge, a large structure that crosses the St. Lucie River approximately six- tenths of a mile north of their home, and which is similar in size to the new bridge now being proposed by the Applicants. The Smiths' home is more than 500 feet from the Project's right- of-way, and they do not know of any impact on its value caused by the Project. While the Smiths currently engage in walking, boating, running, fishing, and watching wildlife in the neighborhood or the South Fork of the St. Lucie River, there was no credible evidence that the Project would prevent them from doing so after the bridge and other improvements are constructed. Also, there was no evidence showing that the ERP Letter Modifications will cause them to suffer any adverse impacts. In fact, as noted below, by DOT undertaking the Project, the neighborhood will be improved through reduced flooding, improved water quality, and new swales and ponds. The County is a political subdivision of the State. It filed one of the applications at issue in this proceeding. DOT is an agency of the State and filed the three applications being contested. The District has the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of ERP criteria pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E of the Florida Administrative Code. The Department of Environment Protection (DEP) has delegated certain authority to the District, including the authority to authorize an applicant to use sovereign submerged lands via a public easement within the District's geographic jurisdiction. The Project Construction of a new bridge over the St. Lucie River has been studied extensively by the Applicants for over twenty years. DOT has awarded the contract and nearly all of the right-of-way has been purchased. The Project will begin as soon as the remaining permits are acquired. The Project is fully funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and County funding. The Project is located in the County and includes 62.06 acres of roadway bridge development and 12.45 acres of sovereign submerged lands. The Project begins on the west side of the St. Lucie River on County Road 714, approximately 1,300 feet west of Mapp Road in Palm City and ends on the east side of the St. Lucie River approximately 1,400 feet east of Kanner Highway (State Road 76) on Indian Street. It includes construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve the road and bridge project. The total length of the Project is approximately 1.96 miles (1.38 miles of roadway and 0.58 miles of bridge) while the total area is approximately 74.51 acres. After treatment, surface water runoff will discharge to the tidal South Fork of the St. Lucie River. The Project encompasses a bridge crossing the South Fork of the St. Lucie River and the Okeechobee Waterway. Both are classified as Class III waters. The bridge transitions from 4 to 6 lanes east of the Okeechobee Waterway and will require a 55-foot vertical clearance and a 200-foot horizontal clearance between the fender systems at the Okeechobee Waterway. The bridge will cross over a portion of Kiplinger Island owned and preserved by the County. A part of the island was donated to the County in 1993-1994 by The Kiplinger Washington Editors, Inc., and the Kiplinger Foundation, Inc. Audubon of Martin County owns another part of the island. The transfer of title to the County does not include any restriction on the use of the island for conservation purposes only. Documentation submitted at hearing refers to a "two hundred foot wide road right-of-way" easement that the bridge will cross and allows the County to designate where on the island parcel such an easement would be. Therefore, spanning the bridge over a portion of the island owned by the County is clearly permissible. The Project also includes the roadway transition and widening/reconstruction of (a) County Road 714 from the beginning of the Project to Mapp Road from 2-lane to a 4-lane divided roadway; (b) Southwest 36th Street from Mapp Road to the beginning of the bridge from a 2-lane rural roadway to a 4-lane divided roadway with wide roadway swales; and (c) Kanner Highway (along Indian Street) from a 4-lane to a 6-lane divided urban roadway. Drainage improvements on both sides of the St. Lucie River are associated with the roadway construction. DOT proposes to provide both on-site and off-site mitigation for wetland and surface waters impacts pursuant to a mitigation plan approved by the District. The ERP Permitting Criteria In order to obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. Besides these rules, certain related BOR provisions which implement the rules must also be considered. The conditions for issuance primarily focus on water quality, water quantity, and environmental criteria and form the basis of the District's ERP permitting program. The parties have stipulated that the Project either complies with the following rule provisions or they are not applicable: Rules 40E-4.301(1)(a), (b), (g), (g), (h), and (k), and 40E- 4.302(1)(a)3. and 6. All other provisions remain at issue. Where conflicting evidence on these issues was submitted, the undersigned has resolved all evidentiary conflicts in favor of the Applicants and District. Based on the parties' Stipulation, the following provisions in Rule 40E-4.301(1) are in dispute and require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a surface water management system: will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters; will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in chapters 62- 4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522, 62-550, F.A.C., including any anti-degradation provisions of paragraphs 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), and rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and any special standards for Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated; will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources; will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed; will be conducted by an entity with sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued; These disputed criteria are discussed separately below. Surface Water Storage and Conveyance Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a proposed activity will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Through unrefuted evidence, this requirement was shown to be satisfied. The evidence also establishes that the surface water in and around the Project will actually improve if the Project is constructed as permitted. Further, it will create improved and upgraded surface water management and treatment in areas that now lack features such as swales, retention/detention ponds, curbs and gutters, and improve the overall surface water storage and conveyance capabilities of the Project and surrounding areas. In its current pre-development condition, flooding has occurred in certain areas adjacent to and within the Project area due to poor conveyance, low storage volume, and high tailwater conditions that result from high tides. The Project will remedy historic flooding issues in the Old Palm City area which lies adjacent to a portion of the Project alignment. Surface water runoff will be captured, controlled, and treated by a system of swales, weirs, and retention/detention facilities for pretreatment prior to discharging into the South Fork of the St. Lucie River. Reasonable assurances have been given that existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities will not be adversely affected. Value of Functions to Fish, Wildlife, and Species Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a proposed activity will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. BOR Section 4.2.2 further implements this provision. For the following reasons, the rule and BOR have been satisfied. The evidence shows that the existing functions to fish and wildlife were assessed and analyzed by a number of federal and state fish and wildlife agencies. There were extensive review and site inspections by the District, DOT, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and National Marine Fisheries Commission to assess the existence of, and potential impact on, fish and wildlife that may result from the Project. These studies revealed that while portions of the South Fork of the St. Lucie River provide potential habitat for aquatic or wetland-dependent or threatened species of special concern, no nesting or roosting areas within the vicinity of the Project were observed. The evidence further supports a finding that "other surface waters" over and under the Project will not receive unacceptable impacts due to their current condition, the detrimental influences of Lake Okeechobee discharges, and tidal impacts. Many of the wetlands to be impacted by the Project were shown to have been impacted by historic activities, and they provide diminished functions to fish and wildlife. The wetland functions were assessed through the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM). The UMAM is a standardized procedure for assessing the functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters, the amount that those functions would be reduced by a proposed project, and the amount of mitigation necessary to offset that loss. Detailed UMAM assessments were prepared by the Applicants and the District. They demonstrate that while certain functional units will be lost, they will be fully offset by the proposed mitigation. No credible evidence to the contrary was presented. Water Quality of Receiving Waters Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that a project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that State water quality standards will be violated. BOR Section 4.2.4 implements this rule and requires that "reasonable assurances regarding water quality must be provided for both the short term and long term, addressing the proposed construction, . . . [and] operation of the system." The receiving water body is the South Fork of the St. Lucie River, which is designated as an impaired water body. The evidence establishes that the Applicants will avoid and minimize potential short-term impacts to water quality by using silt screens and turbidity barriers, and implementing other best management practices to contain turbidity during construction of the Project. They will also use a temporary trestle rather than barges in the shallow portions of the South Fork to avoid stirring up bottom sediments. Finally, a turbidity monitoring plan will be implemented during construction and dewatering activities for all in-water work. All of these construction techniques will minimize potential impacts during construction. The evidence further establishes that water quality standards will not be violated as a result of the Project. In fact, in some cases water quality will be enhanced due to the installation and maintenance of new or upgraded surface water management features in areas where they do not exist or have fallen into disrepair. Over the long term, the Project is expected to have a beneficial effect on water quality. By improving existing surface water management and adding new surface water treatment features, the Project will provide net improvement to water quality. Wetland Delineation and Impacts The Project includes unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. A total of 18.53 acres of wetlands and other surface waters within the Project site will be impacted by the Project, including 3.83 acres of wetlands that will be directly impacted and 14.7 acres of wetlands and other surface waters that will be secondarily impacted. The delineated wetlands are depicted in the Staff Report as wetlands 2a, 19a, 19b, 22, 25-29, 30a, 30b, and 30c, with each having a detailed UMAM assessment of its values and condition. (Impacts to wetland 25 are not included in this Project because they were accounted for in a separate permit proceeding.) Using a conservative assessment and set of assumptions, the District determined that, with the exception of wetlands 19a, 19b, 22, and 27, all wetlands would be impacted by the Project. However, the wetlands that would be impacted suffer from varying historical adverse impacts that have compromised the functions and values they provide to fish, wildlife, and species. This is due to their proximity to urban development, vegetative connectivity, size, historic impacts, altered hydroperiod, and invasive plant species. Likewise, even though the wetlands to be impacted on Kiplinger Island provide certain resting and feeding functions for birds, the value of these functions is comparatively lower than other wetlands due to the presence of invasive species and lack of management. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the Project will not cause adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, or listed species. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(1)(d). Secondary Impacts Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) and BOR Sections 4.1.1(f) and 4.2.7. require a demonstration that the proposed activities will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, both from a wetlands and water quality standpoint. Secondary impacts are those that occur outside the footprint of the project, but which are very closely linked and causally related to the activity to be permitted. De minimis or remotely-related secondary impacts, however, are not considered unacceptable. See § 4.2.7.(a). There will be secondary impacts to 6.83 acres of freshwater wetlands and 7.87 acres of mangroves, or a total of 14.7 acres. To address these secondary impacts, the Applicants have established extensive secondary impact zones and buffers along the Project alignment, which were based in part on District experience with other road projects and another nearby proposed bridge project in an area where a State Preserve is located. While Petitioners' expert contended that a 250-foot buffer on both sides of the roadway's 200-foot right-of-way was insufficient to address secondary impacts to birds (who the expert opines may fly into the bridge or moving vehicles), the greater weight of evidence shows that bird mortality can be avoided and mitigated through various measures incorporated into the Project. Further, the bird mortality studies used by the expert involved significantly different projects and designs, and in some cases involved projects outside the United States with different species concerned. Engineering and Scientific Principles Rule 40E-301(1)(i) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that a project "be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed." Unrefuted evidence establishes that the proposed system will function and be maintained as proposed. Financial, Legal and Administrative Capability Rule 40E-4.301(1)(j) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that it has the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the permit. The evidence supports a finding that Applicants have complied with this requirement. Elimination and Reduction of Impacts Before establishing a mitigation plan, Rule 40E- 4.301(3) requires that an applicant implement practicable design modifications to eliminate and reduce wetland and other surface water impacts. In this case, there are unavoidable, temporary wetland impacts associated with the construction of the Project, as well as unavoidable wetland impacts for direct (project footprint), secondary, and cumulative impacts of the Project. The record shows that the Applicants have undertaken extensive efforts to eliminate and reduce wetland and other surface water impacts of the Project. For example, DOT examined and assessed several innovative construction techniques and bridge designs to eliminate and avoid wetland impacts. To eliminate and reduce temporary impacts occurring during construction, DOT has reduced the effect of scour on the pier foundation and reduced the depth of the footing to minimize the amount of excavation on the mangrove island. Also, during construction, the contractor is prohibited from using the 200- foot right-of-way on the mangrove island for staging or stockpiling of construction materials or equipment. The majority of the bridge width has been reduced to eliminate and avoid impacts. Also, the Project's alignment was adjusted to the north to avoid impacts to a tidal creek. Reasonable assurances have been given that all practicable design and project alternatives to the construction and placement of the Project were assessed with no practicable alternatives. Public Interest Test Besides complying with the requirements of Rule 40E- 4.301, an applicant must also address the seven factors in Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)1.-7., which comprise the so-called "public interest" test. See also § 373.414(1)(a), Fla. Stat. In interpreting the seven factors, the District balances the potential positive and negative effects of a project to determine if it meets the public interest criteria. Because Petitioners agree that factors 3 and 6 of the rule are not at issue, only the remaining five factors will be considered. For the following reasons, the Project is positive when the criteria are weighed and balanced, and therefore the Project is not contrary to the public interest. Public Health, Safety, and Welfare The Applicants have provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not affect public health, safety, and welfare. Specifically, it will benefit the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens by improving traffic conditions and congestion, emergency and hurricane evacuation, and access to medical facilities. In terms of safety, navigation markers are included as part of the Project for safe boating by the public. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)1. Conservation of Fish and Wildlife The activity will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. The mitigation projects will offset any impacts to fish and wildlife, improve the abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife on Kiplinger Island, create mangrove habitat, and add to the marine productivity in the area by enhancing water quality. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-302(1)(a)2. Fishing or Recreational Values The Project has features that allow for pedestrian and bicycle utilization and observation areas which should enhance recreational values. The Old Palm Bridge, approximately one mile north of the Project, has had no adverse impact on the fishing recreation along the South Fork of the St. Lucie River. Navigation will not be affected due to the height and design of the new bridge. Finally, the bridge is expected to be a destination for boating, kayaking, fishing, and bird watching. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)4. Whether the Activity is of a Permanent Nature The parties have stipulated that the Project is permanent in nature. No future activities or future phases of the project are contemplated. Temporary and permanent impacts are all being fully mitigated. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E- 4.302(1)(a)5. Values of Functions Being Performed in Affected Areas Due to historic impacts to the areas affected by the Project, the current condition is degraded and the relative value of functions is minimal. Although Kiplinger Island will have temporary impacts, that island is subject to exotic species and has no recreational use or access by boaters or members of the public. The Applicants propose mitigation which will improve and enhance these wetland functions and values in the areas. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)7. Summary The evidence supports a finding that the Project is positive as to whether it will affect the public health, safety, welfare, or property of others; that the Project is neutral with respect to navigation, erosion and shoaling, and water flow, as well as to historical and archaeological concerns; and that the Project is positive as to conservation of fish, wildlife, recreational values, marine productivity, permanency, and current values and functions. When weighed and balanced, the Project is not contrary to the public interest. Cumulative Impacts Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that a project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters as set forth in BOR Sections 4.28 through 4.2.8.2. Cumulative impacts are the summation of unmitigated wetland impacts within a drainage basin. An analysis is geographically based upon the drainage basins described in BOR Figure 4.4.1. Petitioners' contention that Figure 4.4.1 is inaccurate or not representative of the basin in which the Project is located has been rejected. In this case, the North St. Lucie Basin was used. To assess and quantify any potential unacceptable cumulative impacts in the basin, and supplement the analyses performed by the Applicants, the District prepared a Basin Map that depicted all the existing and permitted wetland impacts as well as those wetlands under some form of public ownership and/or subject to conservation restrictions or easements. The District's analysis found that the wetlands to be mitigated were of poor quality and provided minimal wildlife and water quality functions. Cumulative impacts from the Project to wetlands within the basin resulted in approximately a four percent loss basin-wide. This is an acceptable adverse cumulative impact. Therefore, the Project will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts. Mitigation Adverse impacts to wetlands caused by a proposed activity must be offset by mitigation measures. See § 4.3. These may include on-site mitigation, off-site mitigation, off- site regional mitigation, or the purchase of mitigation credits from mitigation banks. The proposed mitigation must offset direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts to the values and functions of the wetlands impacted by the proposed activity. The ability to provide on-site mitigation for a DOT linear transportation project such as a bridge is limited and in this case consists of the creation of mangrove and other wetlands between the realigned St. Lucie Shores Boulevard and the west shore of the St. Lucie River, north and south of the proposed bridge crossing. BOR Section 4.3.1.2 specifically recognizes this limitation and allows off-site mitigation for linear projects that cannot effectively implement on-site mitigation requirements due to right-of-way constraints. Off-site mitigation will offset the majority of the wetland impacts. Because no single on-site or off-site location within the basin was available to provide mitigation necessary to offset all of the Project's impacts, DOT proposed off-site mitigation at two established and functioning mitigation areas known as Dupuis State Reserve (Dupuis), which is managed by the County and for which DOT has available mitigation credits, and the County's Estuarine Mitigation Site, a/k/a Florida Oceanographic Society (FOS) located on Hutchinson Island. Dupuis is outside the North St. Lucie Basin and was selected to offset direct and secondary impacts to freshwater wetlands. That site meets the ERP criteria in using it for this project. The FOS is within the North St. Lucie Basin and was selected to offset direct and secondary impacts to estuarine wetlands. Like Dupuis, this site also meets the ERP criteria for the project. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the on-site and off-site mitigation projects fully offset any and all project impacts, and in most instances before the impacts will actually occur. Sovereign Submerged Lands and Heightened Public Concern Chapter 18-21 applies to requests for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. The management policies, standards, and criteria used to determine whether to approve or deny a request are found in Rule 18-21.004. For purposes of granting a public easement to the Applicants, the District determined that the Project is not contrary to the public interest and that all requirements of the rule were satisfied. This determination was not disputed. The only issue raised by Petitioners concerning the use of submerged lands is whether the application should have been treated as one of "heightened public concern." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051(5). If a project falls within the purview of that rule, the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board), rather than the District, must review and approve the application to use submerged lands. Review by the Board is appropriate whenever a proposed activity is reasonably expected to result in a heightened public concern because of its potential effect on the environment, natural resources, or controversial nature or location. Id. In accordance with established protocol, the ERP application was sent by the District to DEP's review panel in Tallahassee (acting as the Board's staff) to determine whether the Project required review by the Board. The panel concluded that the Project did not rise to the level of heightened public concern. Evidence by Petitioners that "many people" attended meetings and workshops concerning the Project over the last 20 years or so is insufficient to trigger the rule. Significantly, except for general project objections lodged by Petitioners and Audubon of Martin County, which did not include an objection to an easement, no adjacent property owner or other member of the public voiced objections to the construction of a new bridge. Revised Staff Report On October 20, 2010, the District issued a Revised Staff Report that merely corrected administrative errors or information that had been previously submitted to the District. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, it did not constitute a material change to the earlier agency action either individually or cumulatively. Therefore, it was properly considered in this proceeding. Letter Modifications The Letter Modifications were used as a mechanism to capture minor alterations made to previously issued permits for Kanner Highway and Indian Street. Neither Letter Modification is significant in terms of water quality, water quantity, or environmental impacts. Both were issued in accordance with District rules and should be approved.
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 Nos. 091021-8, 100316-7, and 100316-6. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 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 28th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Ann Wehle, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 Jeffrey W. Appel, Esquire Ray Quinney and Nebeker, P.C. 36 South State Street, Suite 1400 Salt Lake City, Florida 84111-1401 Bruce R. Conroy, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 David A. Acton, Esquire Senior Assistant County Attorney Martin County Administrative Center 2401 Southeast Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-3397 John J. Fumero, Esquire Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, P.A. 950 Peninsula Corporate Circle Suite 2020 Boca Raton, Florida 33487-1389 Keith L. Williams, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Mail Stop 1410 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007
The Issue This proceeding concerns a Consent Order entered into by the Department of Environmental regulation (DER), and James and Patricia Gratzer (Gratzers) regarding an allegedly unpermitted fill in Winter Springs, Florida. The ultimate issue for determination is whether DER abused its discretion in resolving the alleged violations by entering into the subject Consent Order.
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1990, the Gratzers purchased a 4.35 acre lot located at 216 Stoner Road in Winter Springs, Florida. At the time of purchase, the Gratzers planned to divide the lot and build a residence on the two acre parcel. In preparation for construction of their new home, the Gratzers approached the Winter Springs City Council to subdivide the property and to approve of use of the fill road as ingress and egress for both lots. In February of 1991, the Gratzers and their builder obtained the proper building permits from the County and septic tank permits from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Construction began on the residence on April 9, 1992 when the Gratzers' builder brought in several trucks of dirt to the end of the existing fill road to begin the house pad. At the time the Gratzers began construction on the subject lot, they had no idea or reason to believe that they were about to build in jurisdictional wetlands of the State of Florida. On approximately April 14, 1992, the Gratzers were first made aware that they may have problems with potential wetlands on the property when an officer of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission visiting the site instructed the builders to halt construction, pending a review by DER. As a result of the site visit, the Gratzers investigated further with DER employees the potential wetlands on their property. They also sought the advice of an attorney and his environmental consultant regarding possible ways to solve DER's concerns. On approximately April 26, 1991, an employee of DER visited the site and made an initial determination that the property was a jurisdictional wetland subject to permitting by DER. Under present rules the Gratzer property, with exception of the filled access road, would all be in DER jurisdictional wetlands if only the natural vegetation were considered. Upon being informed of DER's initial determination, the Gratzers hired an engineer from Boyer-Singleton & Associates to make an engineering determination as to the extent of jurisdictional wetlands based upon a ten-year backstop. A ten-year backstop is a method provided by statute to determine the ultimate landward extent of DER's vegetational jurisdictional line. It is a hydrological calculation to determine water elevation levels in a certain area, subject to the ten-year recurrent storm event. By rule and statute, DER's jurisdiction over wetlands effectively stops at the upper end or limit of the ten-year flood elevation line. Claude Cassagnol, of Boyer-Singleton and Associates, an expert in hydrology, reviewed available materials, visited the site and made an initial determination of the ten-year backstop on the Gratzers' property, and ultimately mapped out his conclusions on a plat. Mr. Cassagnol's hydrological study, and his review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) materials, led him to conclude that the ten-year backstop would leave the Gratzer's house pad out of any DER jurisdictional wetlands. As a result of his study, Cassagnol forwarded several letters to George Baragona of DER requesting that Mr. Baragona, an expert hydrologist, review his determination and ratify his conclusions. The Gratzers, on advice of counsel, allowed their building contractor to complete compaction of the house pad and begin preparations to pour the house floor. The septic tank contractor for the Gratzers completed installation of the tank and drain field prior to July 1st. After the Gratzers had recommenced construction, on approximately July 10, 1992, DER, issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) which ultimately formed the basis for the Consent Order in this case. The Gratzers immediately ceased further construction on the property and sought further negotiations with DER. Shortly after the NOV was issued, George Baragona reviewed the information, studies and plats submitted by Mr. Cassagnol regarding the ten-year backstop. Baragona made a determination of the ten-year backstop at a point more landward than Cassagnol's. It appears from the plat submitted at hearing, that Baragona's ten- year backstop line runs along the base of the fill roadway; his testimony, however, indicated that his backstop line dipped in and out near the roadway, and he simply chose the baseline of the fill road as his "worst case scenario". Baragona, because of the house pad, was required to extrapolate a line through the house pad, resulting in approximately half of the house pad area being in jurisdictional wetlands. The result of further negotiations between the parties was the Consent Order which is the subject matter of this proceeding. As settlement, the Gratzers agreed to Baragona's "worst case scenario" ten-year backstop, placing approximately half of the house pad was in DER jurisdictional wetlands. As part of the settlement, the Gratzers agreed to, and have paid, a fine of $1,400.00 to DER and have granted a conservation easement over a large portion of the remainder of their property, resulting in an 11.6 to 1 ratio of conservation easement to impacted wetlands, slightly above DER's guideline 10 to 1 ratio. In investigating the alleged violations at the subject property, DER reviewed the cumulative impacts of the project and determined that they were not great, in light of the surrounding area and its already high level of development. In making this determination, DER reviewed property lists, maps and other facts to determine the level of current development. In reviewing the alleged violations, DER also considered whether or not this project would have been able to get a permit had the Gratzers sought a permit prior to any construction. It was DER's determination that the project would have been permittable under the criteria in Chapter 403, in conjunction with the mitigation offered at the site. Finally, in its review and study of the alleged violations, DER determined there was no evidence that this project would have any adverse impact on water quality. DER made a determination that this was a "low to medium" violation, and that the impacts were properly addressed through the Consent Order which imposed the $1,400.00 fine and secured the conservation easement. Fill Road Issue A small road or driveway existed on the site at the time the Gratzers purchased the property, extending from Stoner Road from the south, to the center of their property. Although Baragona indicated the DER modelled backstop line did not always extend to the driveway, he said it sometimes appeared to "bump up" to the eastern edge of the driveway. Baragona could not say with absolute certainty where the 10 year backstop would be on the east side of the site if the driveway were not present. The type of wetland vegetation on the Gratzer property would be considered jurisdictional wetland vegetation under rules adopted pursuant to the 1984 Warren F. Henderson Wetlands Act (Section 403.91, et seq.), but would not be considered jurisdictional wetland vegetation under rules applicable prior to October 1, 1984. If the driveway on the Gratzer property was installed prior to October 1, 1984, it is legal, but if it was installed after that date it is illegal because there is no evidence it ever was properly permitted. DER does not allow illegally filled areas to cut off the extent of its wetland jurisdiction. Therefore, if the driveway on the Gratzer property were placed in DER jurisdictional wetlands without a permit, the road itself could not act as a 10 year backstop cutting off DER wetland jurisdiction to the west. There was conflicting evidence as to when the driveway was placed on the property. James Hartman, who sold the property to the Gratzers, testified he built the driveway in 1978 and 1979. William Kuyper, an expert in aerial photography interpretation, testified that based on his review of aerial photos, the road had been placed on site sometime between January 6, 1986, and March, 1989. The weight of the evidence indicates the driveway was probably placed on site before October 1, 1984, and therefore did not require a DER permit. First, the former landowner's testimony that he built the road in 1978 and 1979, must be considered more reliable than an interpretation of aerial photos taken from 12,000 feet in the air, in spite of the expertise of the photographic interpreter. A possible explanation for why the driveway "appeared" in the 1989 aerial photo but not in the 1986 aerial photo is that the road may have been disturbed, or new fill put on the road sometime between 1986 and 1989, causing the road to be more visible in 1989. Even if the 10 year backstop were to be determined without the driveway present, it would not be significantly different. While DER's 10 year backstop line "bumps up" against the road in places, it does not "bump up" in other places along the driveway, but in order to be conservative the line was placed along with driveway in all areas. The modelled location of the line north of the housepad where there is no driveway is consistent with where the line is modelled south of the housepad where the driveway is located. The Society and its Concerns The Society's corporate status was not controverted. CFWS members have been patrolling the Lake Jessup/Gee Creek area and other wetland areas and have found what they believe are violations of the law and rules intended to protect wetland resources. Although neither Michael Mingea nor his expert witness have been on the Gratzer property, they have been in the immediate area and are concerned about the cumulative impact of small dredging projects, like the Gratzers, which projects are routinely reported to DER by the Society. Beginning in May 1991, the Society corresponded regularly with Secretary Browner at DER and Secretary Williams at the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) and their respective staffs, regarding what the Society perceived were violations occurring through lax enforcement. The Society believed, though review of HRS and DER files, that the Gratzers' project included a septic tank placed in jurisdictional wetlands. This was not established; rather, the septic tank was erroneously placed inside a setback line, but outside the jurisdictional line, and a variance was readily obtained from HRS. DER does not have direct jurisdiction over septic tank permits and HRS' authority is derived from the statutes, not from DER. The Society's position regarding the Gratzer project is based in substantial part on its assertion that the fill road was illegally placed and that DER's jurisdiction extended through the entire property. The Society, however, did not rebut the sound evidence by George Baragona of the 10-year backstop. Nor did it present competent evidence of any alleged water quality violations. Only one other actual violation of permit requirements was established, and DER has required the developer to move the project from jurisdictional wetlands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, recommended that the Consent Order that is the subject of this proceeding be adopted as Final Agency Action. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0104 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners: 1.-3. Adopted in preliminary statement and paragraph 19. 4. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. 5.-6. Rejected as unnecessary. 7.-8. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. 9.-12. Rejected as unnecessary. 13. Adopted in part in paragraph 20, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 14.-16. Rejected as unnecessary. 17.-18. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 19. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 20.-22. Rejected as unnecessary. 23.-25. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 26. Rejected as unnecessary. 27.-30. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 31.-32. Rejected as summary of testimony or argument, rather than findings of fact. 33.-34. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 35.-36. Rejected as unnecessary. 37. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. [Section VI, pp 19-22 includes unnumbered paragraphs summarizing testimony, rather than findings of fact]. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael W. Mingea, President Central Florida Wetlands Society P.O. Box 2826 Orlando, FL 32802 Rex D. Ware, Esquire P.O. Box 1794 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire DER-Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary DER-Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. DER-Twin Towers Ofc. Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399
The Issue The issue is whether an amendment to Conservation Element policy 6.11.3(3) adopted by Respondent, Bay County (County), by Ordinance No. 09-36 on October 20, 2009, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Diane C. Brown resides and owns property within the County, and she submitted written and oral comments to the County during the adoption process of Ordinance No. 09-36. RMA is a non-profit association with approximately 100 members whose mission is "to ensure that future growth [in the County] is properly managed to maintain the quality and productivity of the local estuarine system." See Petitioners' Ex. 6. The parties have stipulated to the facts necessary to establish that RMA is an affected person. The County is a local government that administers its Comprehensive Plan (Plan). The County adopted the Ordinance that approved the text amendment being challenged here. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the County. History and Purpose of the Amendment The County adopted its current Plan in December 1999. Section 163.3191(1), Florida Statutes, requires that every seven years each local government adopt an EAR to "respond to changes in state, regional, and local policies on planning and growth management and changing conditions and trends, to ensure effective intergovernmental coordination, and to identify major issues regarding the community's achievement of its goals." In the spring of 2006, the County began the process of preparing an EAR. On October 17, 2006, it submitted an EAR and Supplement to the Department. On December 21, 2007, the Department found the EAR and Supplement to be sufficient pursuant to section 163.3191(2). See County Ex. 7. After approval of the EAR, section 163.3191(10) requires that the local government "amend its comprehensive plan based on the recommendations in the report." Item 15 in the Recommended Changes portion of the EAR recommended that the Conservation Element be amended in the following respect: "The wetland and surface water buffer requirements should be restructured to recognize site-specific conditions such that pristine systems are afforded greater protection than impacted systems." Petitioners' Ex. 35. A similar recommendation is found in the Issues section of the EAR. Id. To implement these recommendations, the County added a second sentence to subsection (3) of Conservation Element policy 6.11.3. As amended, the subsection now reads as follows: (3) Wetland setbacks will be required as specified in Policy 6.7.4 for development on lots or parcels created after the effective date of this policy. Alternate project design and construction may be permitted in lieu of a required buffer when it can be demonstrated that such alternate design provides equal or greater protections to the wetland or its habitat value. On April 16, 2009, the Local Planning Agency conducted a public hearing and recommended approval of the EAR-based amendments. On May 19, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) voted to transmit the EAR-based amendments to the Department for its review and comments. On July 31, 2009, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report. On October 20, 2009, the Board enacted Ordinance No. 09-36, which adopted the EAR-based amendments, including the amendment to policy 6.11.3(3). See County Ex. 2. On December 15, 2009, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to find the amendments in compliance. See County Ex. 8. Notice of this action was published in the Panama City News-Herald on December 16, 2009. See County Ex. 9. Although section 163.3177(6)(d) requires that the conservation element in a comprehensive plan protect wetlands, nothing in chapter 163 or Department rules requires a local government to adopt buffers. Even so, a 30-foot buffer has been in place since the County adopted its first Plan in 1990. Before it was amended, policy 6.11.3(3) provided that "[w]etland setbacks will be required as specified in Policy 6.7.4 for development on lots or parcels created after the effective date of this policy." Thus, it incorporated by reference the buffer zone requirements established in subsection (6) of policy 6.7.4. That provision reads as follows: (6) No building or structure can be located closer than thirty (30) feet from any DEP wetland jurisdiction line, mean high water line, or ordinary high water line except for piers, docks or similar structures and an attendant ten (10) foot wide cleared path through the wetland for purposes of providing access to such structure, or wet- land crossings required to connect dry, upland parcels. All native vegetation, if any exists, will be preserved within the 30- foot setback area. This requirement, including possible alternatives, may be further addressed in the Land Use Code. In short, this provision (a) requires a 30-foot buffer setback area between structures and DEP jurisdictional wetlands and mean or high water lines; (b) requires the preservation of native vegetation in the setback area; and (c) authorizes a 10-foot wide area to be cleared across the setback area to access the water or a dock. However, pursuant to provisions addressed in the Land Use Code (now renamed the Land Development Regulations (LDRs)), alternative project design and construction may be used in lieu of the required buffers. Except for changing the words "Land Use Code" to "Land Development Regulations," policy 6.7.4(6) was not amended in the EAR process. Therefore, all of its requirements remain in place. To address other "alternatives" to the buffer requirements, in September 2004 the County amended section 1909.3.h of the LDRs to allow alternative project design and construction "in lieu of the required buffer when it can be demonstrated that such alternative method provides protection to the wetland or its habitat value that is equal or greater than the vegetated buffer." Petitioners' Ex. 14, p. 19-11. This regulation authorizes the County Planning Commission, on a case- by-case basis through the site plan and variance process, and subject to final approval by the Board, to reduce the 30-foot buffer provided that the reduced buffer is mitigated based upon site-specific circumstances. The processing of these requests has provided the County with experience in approving buffer modifications through the use of alternative methods that provide "equal or greater" environmental benefits. A small number of variances have been authorized by the County under this process since the adoption of the regulation. See County Ex. 10 and 11; Petitioners' Ex. 15-18. In those cases, the County has granted a variance where, for example, the applicant has chosen to cluster wetland access points, elevate walkways in the buffer, enhance the buffer with vegetation or turf, reduce existing stormwater impacts, use swales, or employ other required mitigation to offset the reduction in the buffer. On the other hand, "numerous" other property owners were advised that, absent "special circumstances," a variance would not be granted because the applicant could not demonstrate that there would be an enhanced environmental benefit by reducing the buffer. Under current Plan provisions, a variance is the only way to modify the buffer requirement. The amendment does not eliminate the minimum 30-foot buffer required by policy 6.7.4(6). See Finding of Fact 10, supra. It does, however, provide the County with greater flexibility in approving requests to modify the required buffers and to consider factors that the current Plan does not address. Even though the function and value of wetlands may vary widely, the current Plan makes no distinction between pristine or impacted wetlands, and it does not allow the County to require a larger buffer for a pristine wetland. Under the new policy, the County may establish buffers based on site-specific conditions that consider factors such as location, wetland quality, surrounding land uses, site habitat, and the presence or absence of listed species. This will enable the County, through alternative design and construction techniques, to preserve higher quality wetlands or vegetation with larger buffers while at the same time reducing the buffer size for impacted wetlands in return for mitigation by the owner. The County will also have the flexibility to establish buffers in non-urban settings based on factors other than just erosion potential. The specific process for approving changes in buffer setbacks under the new policy will be established in the LDRs. However, all LDRs must meet the standard in the policy that the alternative design provides "equal or greater protection to the wetland or its habitat value." Under the process envisioned by the County, when a request is made for a buffer reduction under the new policy, the County will require that an analysis be performed by a qualified professional to justify the need for a buffer reduction. If no alternative to a buffer reduction exists, the owner will be required to have a biotic study prepared indicating the extent to which the encroachment would occur, along with justification for the encroachment. Assuming that justification can be shown, the County will then require some form of mitigation by the owner. The effectiveness of the new policy will be monitored, evaluated, and appraised through the use of geographical information system overlay maps. Finally, members of the public, including Petitioners, will be given access to the process through existing notice requirements for development orders. Petitioners' Objections Petitioners contend that policy 6.11.3(3) is internally inconsistent with Conservation Element objectives 6.7 and 6.11; that it is inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(d), (8), and (9)(b), 163.3191(10), and 187.201(9); and that it is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5) and 9J-5.013(1). The essence of the arguments is that the new policy decreases protection for wetlands, that it conflicts with the specific recommendations in the EAR, and that buffers should be based on studies pertaining to wetland setbacks rather than alternative design and construction. To prevail on these contentions, Petitioners must show that even if there is evidence supporting the propriety of the amendment, no reasonable person would agree that the amendment is in compliance. See Conclusion of Law 28, infra. Data and analysis Petitioners contend that the amendment is not supported by adequate and appropriate data and analysis, that the County did not react appropriately to the data and analyses in the EAR, and that the amendment is therefore inconsistent with rules 9J-5.005(2) and 9J-5.013(1) and section 163.3177(8). The data and analysis in the EAR and Supplement, including the Deer Point Reservoir Hydrologic Study, are incorporated by reference into the Plan. See County Ex. 1, Ch. 1, policy 1.1.4.4. As recommended by the EAR, the County reviewed current published scientific literature relating to wetland and surface water buffers. It also conducted a survey of buffer regulations and setbacks in various jurisdictions in the County and throughout the State. As summarized in the EAR, the data and analysis describe the limitations of wetland buffers, including the existing 30-foot buffer; however, they do not suggest that a larger buffer is necessary. Rather, they support the necessity for flexibility in the application of the existing buffer in order to provide equal or greater protection to pristine wetlands, which is the purpose of the new amendment. Petitioners contend that based on current published literature, the County should have reacted to the data and analysis by adopting a series of specific buffer distances up to 300 meters, depending on the type of habitat and wildlife around the wetlands and streams. While the establishment of larger wetland buffers in the Plan is possible, they are not required by state law or Department rules, and section 163.3184(6)(c) provides that a local government does not have to duplicate or exceed a state agency's permitting program. It is at least fairly debatable that the County reacted to the data and analysis in an appropriate manner by adopting a policy that requires that any request for a deviation from the minimum 30-foot buffer be accompanied by a demonstration that the alternative design will provide at least equal or greater protection to wetlands and their habitat values. Internal Inconsistency with Conservation Element Petitioners next contend that policy 6.11.3(3) violates section 163.3177(9)(b) and rule 9J-5.005(5) because it is internally inconsistent with objectives 6.7 and 6.11. The two objectives were not amended during the EAR process. Petitioners contend that the new policy is internally inconsistent with objective 6.7, which requires that the County "[c]onserve and manage natural resources on a systemwide basis rather than piecemeal." Petitioners' evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the new policy is internally inconsistent with this objective. Petitioners also contend that the policy is internally inconsistent with objective 6.11, which requires the County to "[p]rotect and conserve wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands." Wetlands vary widely in function and value, and the current one-size-fits-all standard does not adequately address the different values and functions. The new policy provides the County with the flexibility to consider numerous site-specific factors and, when warranted, to establish buffers that vary from the 30-foot standard. The evidence shows that the new policy can also assist with the restoration of degraded natural systems to a functional condition. It is at least fairly debatable that the new policy protects and conserves wetlands and their natural functions. Similarly, the policy does not conflict with rule 9J-5.013 and section 187.201(9), which require or encourage that wetlands and other natural functions of wetlands be preserved, as alleged by Petitioners. Consistency with section 163.3191(10) Petitioners contend that the new policy is inconsistent with section 163.3191(10) because the County failed to "amend its comprehensive plan based on the recommendations in the [EAR] report." As a part of this argument, they also assert that, contrary to recommendations in the EAR, the new policy does not give adequate direction for the LDRs; that it contains none of the recommended site-specific criteria needed to evaluate the alternative design; that it fails to include a defined setback size; and that it does not allow the County to increase the size of a buffer. These arguments are based upon item 15 of the Recommended Changes portion of the EAR, which recommends that the County "restructure" the wetland and surface water buffer requirements "to recognize site-specific conditions such that pristine systems are afforded greater protection than impacted systems." Petitioners' Ex. 35. The new policy does not eliminate the 30-foot buffer. See policy 6.7.4(6)("no building or structure can be located closer than thirty (30) feet from any DEP wetland jurisdiction line, mean high water line, or ordinary high water line"). While the policy allows the required buffer to be modified, an applicant must first demonstrate that the alternative design provides equal or greater protection to the wetland or its habitat value. The policy also provides direction for implementing LDRs by requiring that any adopted LDR adhere to the above standard. Notably, through alternative design, the County may require larger buffers for pristine wetlands, while reducing the buffers for those of lower quality in return for mitigation. This is consistent with the EAR recommendation that the County afford pristine systems greater protection than impacted systems. Petitioners further point out that the new policy is flawed because it does not include every site-specific condition mentioned in the EAR. However, there is no requirement for this level of detail in the Plan, so long as the policy achieves the overall recommendation in the EAR, and it provides adequate standards for implementing LDRs. It is at least fairly debatable that the amendment complies with the requirements of the statute.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the amendment to policy 6.11.3(3) adopted by the County by Ordinance No. 09-36 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 31st day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Buzzett, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Diane C. Brown 241 Twin Lakes Drive Laguna Beach, Florida 32413-1413 Alfred E. Beauchemin 705 Beachcomber Drive Lynn Haven, Florida 32444-3419 Lynette Noor, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire Bay County Attorney 840 West 11th Street Panama City, Florida 32401-2336
