The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondents, Kelly Endres and Ifrain Lima (Endres/Lima), are entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) that would allow use of 0.535 acres of previously impacted wetlands for the construction of a single-family residence and associated structures, a 30' x 30' private dock with a 4' access walkway, and a 12' wide boat ramp (Project) at 160 Long Acres Lane, Oviedo, Florida (Property).
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the state statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's air and water resources. The Department administers and enforces certain provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated, thereunder, in the Florida Administrative Code. Under that authority, the Department determines whether to issue or deny applications for ERPs. Respondents Endres/Lima own the Property and are the applicants for the ERP at issue in this consolidated proceeding. Petitioner Meier is a neighboring property owner to the south of the Property. Petitioner Meier's property includes a single-family residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. Petitioner Meier is concerned that the NOI provides inadequate environmental protections and that there will be flooding on adjacent properties from the Project. Petitioner Hacker is the neighboring property owner adjacent to the south of the Property. Petitioner Hacker's property includes a single-family residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. He is concerned with the completeness of the application for the Project, the calculation of wetland impacts, that reasonable assurances were provided, and that the Department's NOI ignores willful negligence and allows disparate treatment of Respondents Endres/Lima. Petitioner Kochmann is a property owner with a single-family residence and accessory structures located on Long Lake. She is concerned that the NOI is based on a misleading application and provides no evidence that the Respondents Endres/Lima made reasonable efforts to eliminate and reduce impacts detrimental to the environment. History of the Project and Application On April 12, 2018, Respondents Endres/Lima applied for an ERP for proposed wetland impacts associated with a planned single-family home on the Property. This was the first ERP application for the Property. The Department sent a Request for Additional Information (RAI) on April 24, 2018, and a second RAI on November 2, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima provided a Mitigation Service Area Rule Analysis for "As If In-Basin" for the Lake X Mitigation Bank for the St. Johns River Water Management District Basins to the Department via email on May 10, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima submitted revised plans to the Department on September 19, and October 30, 2018. On January 7, 2019, the Department denied the ERP application. The Department and Respondents Endres/Lima, on July 18, 2019, entered into a Consent Order (CO). The Department found, and Respondents Endres/Lima admitted, that approximately 0.80 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were dredged and filled without a valid ERP from the Department; and was done with improperly installed erosion and sedimentation controls. On August 22, 2019, Respondents Endres/Lima submitted a second ERP application. The Department sent an RAI on September 20, 2019, to which Respondents Endres/Lima responded on December 19, 2019. In addition, Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0.60 of forested Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) wetland credits from the Lake X Mitigation Bank and provided the Department with an updated site plan and Lake X Mitigation Bank credit reservation letter. The Department issued an NOI on February 7, 2020, which was timely published in the Sanford Herald on February 9, 2020. Respondents Endres/Lima provided timely proof of publication to the Department on February 13, 2020. Consent Order and Compliance A warning letter was issued to Respondents Endres/Lima on January 30, 2019, for the dredging and filling of approximately 0.80 acres of forested wetlands and improper installation of erosion and sedimentation control. The CO, executed on July 18, 2019, required Respondents Endres/Lima to cease any dredging, filling, or construction activities on the Property, submit an application for an Individual ERP within 30 days, and pay $5,599.00 in penalties and the Department's costs and expenses. After the issuance of an ERP, Respondents Endres/Lima were also required to implement the restoration actions outlined in the CO. Respondents’ Endres/Lima’s application, dated August 19, 2020, was submitted to the Department on August 22, 2020. Respondents Endres/Lima paid the CO's penalties and costs, and had multiple meetings with the Department to complete the requirements of the CO. Respondents Endres/Lima’s expert, Mr. Exner, testified that he began working on a restoration plan for the Property, which will be provided to the Department once an ERP is issued. Permitting Criteria The Department reviewed the complete application and determined that it satisfied the conditions for issuance under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.301, and the applicable sections of the ERP Applicant's Handbook Volume I (AH Vol. I). The Department also considered the seven criteria in rule 62-330.302 and section 373.414(1)(a), and determined that implementing the Project would not be contrary to the public interest. Water Quantity, Flooding, Surface Water Storage and Conveyance Respondents’ Endres/Lima's civil engineering expert, Mr. Herbert, testified that according to the drainage design, the Property would have swales on either side of the proposed residence to slope water away from the residence. There would also be a conveyance swale on the north property boundary to convey water from the street area and front yard toward the restoration and wetland areas with ultimate discharge to Long Lake. He stated that the elevation of the road at the front of the Property would be at 47.4 feet, and the elevation at the terminus of the swale would be at 45 feet. This would allow a 2.4-foot vertical fall for the swales to convey water to the lake. The design would preserve pre-development surface water flow over the Property to Long Lake, which is the lowest elevation in the area, and will ensure that storm water does not flood adjacent properties. Mr. Herbert also testified that the Project design would maintain pre-development water storage capacity. The imported fill that is currently on the Property in the flood plain would be removed and reshaped so that the lake elevation would be maintained and water can flow correctly. Elimination or Reduction of Impacts and Mitigation Respondents Endres/Lima provided the Department with design modifications to reduce impacts associated with the Project. These included a 15-foot restoration buffer along the lake front's northern shoreline, an elevated access walkway five feet above the wetland restoration area to the proposed dock, limiting the width of the access walk to four feet, and limiting the boat ramp width to a single-lane. In June 2015, an informal wetlands determination was conducted for the Property. The informal determination concluded that the entirety of the Property were wetlands. However, this was an informal determination and was not binding. In October 2016, before the first permit application was submitted, Mr. Exner did a wetlands delineation flagging prior to the Property being cleared or disturbed. Mr. Exner testified that, in his opinion, the Property was not all wetlands because large pines near the road had no high water marks, adventitious growth around the bases, or evidence of pine borer beetles along with other indicators of upland habitat. This wetland delineation was part of the permit submittal, was shown on the plans, was accepted by the Department, and was used for the preparation of the UMAM scoring. Mr. Exner's wetland delineation line was used by the Department to help determine and map the wetland impacts identified in the CO. The direct impact area was assessed at 0.54 acres with a secondary impact area of 0.02 acres for a total impact of 0.56 acres, and a functional loss score of 0.364. Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0.6 forested UMAM mitigation credits, almost double the amount of functional loss under the UMAM assessment, agreed to purchase 0.46 credits. The excess mitigation bank credits implement part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and greater long-term ecological value than the area of wetland adversely affected. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts The Project's UMAM analysis assessed 0.02 acres, or 870 square feet, of secondary impacts. These impacts would be fully offset by the mitigation proposed for the Project. Petitioners' expert, Mr. Mahnken, noted three areas where he thought the application was incomplete. The first was that the site plan did not call out the location of the secondary impacts. However, Part III: Plans of Section B of the application, does not require that the site plan show the location of the secondary impacts. The application requirements for "plans" requires only the boundaries and size of the wetlands on the Property and provide the acreages of the upland areas, wetland impact areas, and the remaining untouched area. Second, Mr. Mahnken questioned the calculation performed to determine the secondary impact acreage. However, Mr. Mahnken read the information incorrectly and stated that the secondary impact area was 0.002 acres, or 87 square feet, when the UMAM score sheet clearly showed that the secondary impact area is 0.02 acres, or 870 square feet. In addition, the Department's witness, Ms. Warr, testified that even if the Department were to use Mr. Mahnken's analysis, the result would have been the same, i.e., the requirement to purchase 0.46 mitigation credits. Thus, Petitioners failed to support their claim that the Project would have adverse secondary impacts. Third, Mr. Mahnken asserted that cumulative impacts were not adequately addressed. He testified that the assessment for the Property using spill over benefits, in his opinion, was not enough to fully offset the impacts of the Project. Mr. Mahnken acknowledged, however, that his opinion was open to debate, and that he had not conducted any rigorous hydrologic evaluation in reaching his opinion. Respondents Endres/Lima had submitted a report prepared by Breedlove, Dennis & Associates (BDA Report) with their application in order to demonstrate compliance with section 10.2.8, ERP AH Vol. I, regarding cumulative impacts. The BDA Report utilized peer-reviewed hydrologic data that was reviewed and approved by the South Florida Water Management District, and was accepted by the Department pursuant to section 373.4136(6)(c). This was consistent with the Property's location within the mitigation service area for the Lake X Mitigation Bank. The Project is located within the Econlockhatchee River drainage basin, which is a nested basin within the larger St. Johns River [Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva] drainage basin. The Lake X Mitigation Bank is located outside of the Econlockhatchee River drainage basin, but the Project is located within the Lake X Mitigation Bank service area. The BDA report determined that: In summary, the Lake X Mitigation Bank is a regionally significant mitigation bank site that has direct hydrological and ecological connections to the SJRWMD basins, to include the cumulative impacts basin in which the subject property is located (i.e., SJRWMD Basin 19). The size, biodiversity, and proximity of the mitigation bank site to the SJRWMD basins, and the regionally significant hydrological connection between the mitigation bank site and the contiguous SJRWMD mitigation basins, supports the use of this mitigation bank site “as if in basin” mitigation for the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project. Additionally, the evaluation of factors, to include connectivity of waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality, demonstrates the spillover benefits that the Lake X Mitigation Bank has on the St. Johns River (Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva) mitigation basin, which includes the Econlockhatchee River Nested basin, and demonstrated that the proposed mitigation will fully offset the impacts proposed as part of the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project “as if in-basin” mitigation. The Lake X Mitigation Bank will protect and maintain the headwaters of two regionally significant drainage basins [i.e., the Northern Everglades Kissimmee River Watershed and the Upper St. Johns River Watershed (to include the nested Econlockhatchee River basin)], and will provide resource protection to both river systems (SFWMD Technical Staff Report, November 29, 2016). Furthermore, the permanent protection and management of the Lake X Mitigation Bank will provide spillover benefits to the SJRWMD basins located within the permitted MSA. Mr. Mahnken stated that his review of the Project did not include a hydrologic study and only looked at basic flow patterns for Long Lake. By contrast, the BDA Report included an extensive hydrologic study, looked at all required factors in section 10.2.8(b), ERP AH, Vol. I, and determined that the Project would be fully offset with the proposed mitigation. Thus, Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. Water Quality Rule 62-330.302(1)(e) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the state water quality standards will be violated. The conditions of the ERP would require the use of best management practices including a floating turbidity curtain/barrier, soil stabilization with grass seed or sod, and a silt fence. Respondent Endres/Lima's experts, Mr. Herbert and Mr. Exner, testified that there is an existing turbidity barrier in the lake around the property and a silt fence around the east half of the Property. While these items are not required by the Department until construction of the Project, part of the silt fence and the turbidity barrier are already installed on the Property and will be required to be repaired and properly maintained in accordance with the conditions of the ERP and Site Plan SP-2. Mr. Herbert testified that the Property will be graded in a manner that will result in a gentle sloping of the lake bank in the littoral zone, which would allow revegetation of the lake bank. Outside of the restoration area and the undisturbed wetlands, the backyard would be covered with grass to prevent migration of sand and soil discharging into the lake. Mr. Exner testified that the grass swales proposed for the Project would provide a considerable amount of nutrient uptake and filtration of surface water on the Property. Also, in the restoration area next to the lake, the restoration plan includes a dense planting plan with native species that have good nutrient uptake capability. Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Rule 62-330.301(1)(d) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Mr. Exner testified that, in his review of the Property, he did not identify any critical wildlife habitat. He visited the Property multiple times and he did not see any osprey nests, deer tracks, animal scat, gopher tortoises, or sand hill cranes. The Department's Ms. Warr testified that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission database was reviewed, and did not show any listed species in the area. Publication of Notice Petitioners argued that the notice published in the Sanford Herald on February 9, 2020, did not meet the requirements of section 373.413(4). Despite the notice having no effect on their ability to timely challenge the proposed ERP, Petitioners argued that the published notice was insufficient because the notice itself did not provide the name of the applicants or the address of the Project, only a link to the Department's permit file. Unlike the notice required in section 373.413(3), where a person has filed a written request for notification of any pending application affecting a particular designated area, section 373.413(4) does not specify the contents of the published notice. Section 373.413(4) does not require the published notice to include the name and address of the applicant; a brief description of the proposed activity, including any mitigation; the location of the proposed activity, including whether it is located within an Outstanding Florida Water or aquatic preserve; a map identifying the location of the proposed activity subject to the application; a depiction of the proposed activity subject to the application; or a name or number identifying the application and the office where the application can be inspected. In response to the published notice, the Department received approximately ten petitions challenging the NOI, including the petitions timely filed by Petitioners. Therefore, Petitioners were not harmed by any information alleged to have been left out of the published notice. Ultimate Findings Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; and will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project complied with elimination and reduction of impacts, and proposed more than adequate mitigation. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources; and unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving water bodies. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species by wetlands, or other surface waters. Petitioners failed to prove lack of reasonable assurance by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order granting Respondents’ Endres/Lima's ERP application. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2020. Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Neysa Borkert, Esquire Garganese, Weiss, D'Agresta and Salzman 111 North Orange Avenue Post Office Box 398 Orlando, Florida 32802 (eServed) Tracy L. Kochmann 249 Carolyn Drive Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Shelley M. Meier 208 Long Acres Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Brian Hacker 170 Long Acres Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Pioneer Community Development District (“Pioneer”) is entitled to an individual environmental resource permit (“ERP”) from St. Johns River Water Management District (“District”) for construction of a proposed road.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Tomm Friend is a resident and landowner in Volusia County. He uses the Doris Leeper Spruce Creek Preserve (“Preserve”) for kayaking, canoeing, biking, horseback riding, and observation of flora and fauna. Petitioner Derek LaMontagne is a resident and landowner in Volusia County. He uses the Preserve for hiking, biking, and nature photography. Petitioner/Intervenor Turnbull Bay Community, Inc. (“Turnbull Bay”), is a Florida non-profit corporation. Its mission is to promote a sense of community and preserve the quality of life enjoyed by its residents. It was stipulated that a substantial number of Turnbull Bay’s members use the Preserve for hiking, biking, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, and nature photography. Petitioner/Intervenor Friends of Spruce Creek Preserve, Inc. (“Friends, Inc.”) is a Florida non-profit corporation. Its purpose is to promote the acquisition of lands for the Preserve and promote long-term protection and sound management of the Preserve. It was stipulated that a substantial number of Friends, Inc.’s members use the Preserve for hiking, biking, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, and nature photography. Respondent Pioneer is a Community Development District (“CDD”) created by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (“FLWAC”) under chapter 190, Florida Statutes. Pioneer is the applicant for the ERP. Respondent District is an independent special district of the State of Florida created, granted powers, and assigned duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including powers and duties related to the regulation of construction activities that affect wetlands. The proposed road is within the boundaries of the District. The Proposed Road Pioneer proposes to construct an extension of Williamson Boulevard from its current terminus near Airport Road southward to Pioneer Trail. The road would be constructed on property owned by Pioneer in the City of Port Orange. Pioneer’s interest in constructing the road is to facilitate the development of the property. Long-term plans by Volusia County have called for the phased extension of Williamson Boulevard to the far south part of the County. The road would serve County objectives of creating an alternate route between the cities of Port Orange and New Smyrna Beach to relieve traffic on I-95, and connecting Williamson Boulevard to a large development in the south called Farmton. Pioneer entered into an agreement with Volusia County to design, engineer, and finance the construction of the road. After completion, the road would be purchased by the County. In the ERP application, the proposed road is described as “2.3 miles of county roadway within a 130-foot right-of-way . . . in order to accommodate four travel lanes with on-road bike lanes, [a] closed drainage system, [a] 22-foot wide curbed and grassed median, and a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk on each side of the road. The existing two-lane roadway south of Airport Road will be widened to four lanes.” Existing Site Conditions The parcel of land through which the road would be built is approximately 722 acres. It consists primarily of mesic pine forest uplands and cypress swamp wetlands. The parcel is along the west side of I-95, east of Pioneer’s existing Cypresshead residential development. Across I-95 is the Preserve. The parcel is within the Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basin. The wetlands located on the west side of the parcel are in “near-pristine” condition. They have healthy hydric periods and ecological functions. These high value wetlands would be avoided by the proposed road alignment. The wetlands located on the east and south sides of the parcel are of lower quality because of human disturbance, including past silvicultural activities. These wetlands are partially drained and their ecological functions are diminished. All of the wetlands on the parcel currently drain to Spruce Creek, some through culverts under I-95. Petitioners contend a section of the old “Kings Highway” runs across the parcel and is a historical resource that would be adversely affected by construction of the proposed road. However, Pioneer conducted an archaeological and historical survey of the parcel and determined the proposed road project would have no effect on cultural resources either listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. What Petitioners refer to as “Kings Highway” is the “Fort Kingsbury to Smyrna Road.” The survey concluded that this road no longer has historical physical integrity or can “convey its historical significance.” The Division of Historical Resources within the Florida Department of State reviewed the survey findings and concurred. Impacts to Wetlands A little more than 79 acres will be impacted by the proposed road, including 22.2 acres of wetlands. The proposed road would not follow a straight line. An alignment was chosen to minimize impacts to wetlands. Pioneer’s consultants explored approximately a dozen different alignments for the road before selecting the current proposed alignment. The alignment extends east from its current terminus toward I-95, then runs south approximately parallel to I-95, and then turns back to the southwest to connect to Pioneer Trail. More than a third of the proposed road’s path would occur in disturbed land that was cleared, filled, and is regularly mowed under a power line and otherwise hugs I-95. The east edge of the road would lie within 100 to 125 feet of the west margin of the I-95 pavement. There are “stub-outs” planned for the road in anticipation of future streets. They are proposed for locations that avoid the need for additional wetland impacts. Petitioners argue the road should be limited to two lanes because that would reduce wetland impacts. However, Williamson Boulevard north of Airport Road is a four-lane road. The segment of Williamson from Airport Road to its current terminus is two-lane, but was built on a wide right-of-way in anticipation of a future expansion to four-lanes. The County’s plans for Williamson Boulevard call for four lanes all the way to the ultimate southern terminus at Farmton. Petitioners suggested that building an elevated pier- supported road would lessen wetland impacts. However, Petitioners did not present persuasive evidence that such a design was necessary or practicable. They presented no details. Mitigation of Impacts Pioneer proposes to purchase a total of 44.6 wetland mitigation bank credits to mitigate for the 22.2 acres of wetland impacts that would be caused by construction of the road and stormwater management system. The credits would be purchased from two separate wetland mitigation banks: the Farmton North Mitigation Bank and the Port Orange Mitigation Bank. These mitigation banks support wetland resources similar to those that would be impacted by the road. Petitioners contend that, because the mitigation banks are not in the Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basin, Pioneer would not be providing adequate mitigation. The mitigation banks are located within the Halifax River Mitigation Basin, also known as drainage basin #17. This mitigation basin includes the Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basin and Pioneer’s parcel. Pioneer presented persuasive evidence that its mitigation would provide regional ecological value. Petitioners did not dispute that the credits from these two wetland mitigation banks would provide greater long-term ecological value than the wetlands impacted by the proposed road. The Stormwater Management System Under Pioneer’s proposal, the water management functions performed by the wetlands that would be impacted by the road would be replaced by the proposed stormwater system. Runoff from the road would be collected and conveyed via curbs, gutters, inlets, and piping into the stormwater system. Several culverts would be built beneath the road to maintain the existing flow of water and prevent on-site and off- site flooding. The proposed system meets the design standards in the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook (“Applicant’s Handbook”), including regular and special design criteria intended to prevent degradation of water quality, as discussed in the next section. Water Quality Petitioners contend that pollutants from the road’s construction and operation would degrade the water quality of Spruce Creek. Because Spruce Creek is designated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) as an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW”), the District’s permitting regulations require applicants to provide reasonable assurance that, in addition to the treatment required for discharges to non-OFWs, the system provides 50 percent additional treatment volume and residence time for runoff. Pioneer’s proposed stormwater management system would provide the 50 percent additional treatment volume and residence time before discharging off-site. The proposed project is also subject to special criteria applicable within the Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basin. Pioneer is required to provide reasonable assurance that the stormwater management system will retain more than three inches of runoff from the directly-connected impervious surface area within the Most Effective Recharge Area. The proposed system includes dry retention facilities designed to meet this requirement. DEP is responsible for the total maximum daily load (“TMDL”) program for the State. The program develops TMDLs for water bodies that have impaired water quality. DEP lists Spruce Creek as suffering impairment by nutrients, specifically for phosphorus and fecal coliform bacteria. When a proposed receiving water body is listed by DEP as nutrient-impaired, the District will typically require the permit applicant to provide calculations of pre- and post- development loading of the listed nutrient(s). The applicant must then also calculate the removal efficiency of its proposed stormwater treatment system to show the project will not contribute to the impairment of the receiving water. Pioneer calculated pre- and post-development phosphorus loading of Spruce Creek and determined that the phosphorus removal capabilities of the proposed stormwater management system would be sufficient to ensure that construction and operation of the road would not contribute to the nutrient impairment in Spruce Creek. Roads do not generate fecal coliform bacteria. Therefore, the proposed road would not contribute to the fecal coliform bacteria impairment in Spruce Creek. Petitioners contend the proposed road would adversely affect Spruce Creek by altering levels of chloride, nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The ERP rules do not require specific analyses of these constituents. Petitioners did not present persuasive evidence that the construction or operation of the road would cause measurable changes in the concentrations of these constituents in Spruce Creek. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioners’ contention that the stormwater management system will not adequately protect water quality is an attempt to rebut the presumption that compliance with the District’s design standards provides reasonable assurance that state water quality standards will be met. Petitioners' evidence fell short of rebutting the presumption. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Petitioners contend that the proposed road is integrally related with the construction of a new I-95 interchange at Pioneer Trail, and the impacts to wetlands caused by the State or Federal Government’s construction of the interchange should have been taken into account as secondary impacts of Pioneer’s road project. There is no current funding agreement in place for the construction of the interchange. The interchange is still in the early stages of review. Volusia County believes that even without an interchange, the extension of Williamson Boulevard to Pioneer Trail is a justified transportation project. Petitioners contend that the proposed alignment of the road, turning back to the southwest away from I-95 before connecting to Pioneer Trail, is proof that the road was designed to accommodate the interchange. However, the alignment at the south end was designed to avoid the raised section of Pioneer Trail which passes over I-95, as well as existing electrical power lines and a utility station. This proposed alignment also avoids impacts to wetlands directly south of Pioneer Trail in the future extension of Williamson Boulevard by the County. CDD Conditions Petitioners contend that “[a] foundational issue that must be answered in order to address the ultimate issue is whether [Pioneer] has met the conditions for its establishment as a Community Development District.” The condition that the Petitioners believe Pioneer has violated comes from the following statement contained in the Recommended Order presented to FLWAC in the proceeding related to Pioneer’s application to establish the CDD: Based on the record evidence, as supplemented and corrected, the Petition appears to meet all statutory requirements, and there appears to be no compelling reason not to grant the Petition, as supplemented and corrected, and establish the proposed Pioneer Community Development District by rule, unless establishment would be at odds with State plans to purchase the 450 acres east of I-95. In re: Petition for Rule Creation – Pioneer Community Development District, Case No. 05-1852 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 21, 2005; FLWAC July 5, 2006). First, this recommendation was not adopted by FLWAC as part of the rule establishing the Pioneer CDD. Second, the parcel of land that was the subject of the recommendation is located east of I-95. Petitioners did not show how Pioneer’s proposed road would impair the State’s ability to acquire that parcel. Petitioners did not call any knowledgeable State employee as a witness to confirm Petitioners’ claim that the proposed road would impede the State’s acquisition efforts.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of the ERP to Pioneer, with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report dated November 3, 2014. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 12th day of March, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher Thomas Byrd, Esquire The Byrd Law Group 3505 Lake Lynda Drive, Suite 200 Orlando, Florida 32817 (eServed) Kealey A. West, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 (eServed) Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire Lewis, Longman and Walker, P.A. 245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 150 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-4931 (eServed) Hans G. Tanzler, III, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should grant the applications of Petitioner, John Rondolino, for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and a Sovereign Lands Consent of Use for a proposed single-family dock on his property on the Rainbow River in near Dunnellon in Marion County, Florida; and (2) whether the landward extent of DEP's wetlands jurisdiction on Petitioner's property should be determined in this proceeding and, if so, the landward extent of those jurisdictional wetlands.
Findings Of Fact Procedural Background On February 23, 2000, DEP received an anonymous complaint regarding the clearing and filling of a parcel of property that was subsequently purchased by Petitioner, John Rondolino. Petitioner's property is Parcel Number 34581-001-02, Section 18, Township 16S, Range 19E, Marion County, 7069 South West 190th Avenue Road Extension, Dunnellon, Florida 34432-2827. Comprising approximately 1.159 acres, the pie-shaped parcel is located adjacent to the Rainbow River, which is a Class III Outstanding Florida Water and an Aquatic Preserve. As a result of the anonymous complaint, DEP inspected the site on February 24, 2000, and determined that a fill violation of Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, had occurred. During this inspection, DEP delineated an informal wetland jurisdictional line such that approximately 0.47 acre of the property nearest the river was claimed as state jurisdictional wetlands. On March 29, 2000, Petitioner purchased the property upon which the alleged fill violation had occurred. On May 4, 2000, Petitioner and his wife met with DEP staff and indicated that he wanted to construct a structure for water-related activities (SFWRA)(a single-family dock) and make other improvements to the property. During this meeting, Petitioner challenged DEP's informal wetland jurisdictional line. At Petitioner's request, DEP delineated a second informal wetland jurisdictional line on May 23, 2000. The second delineation was somewhat different than the first but still included approximately the same amount of Petitioner's land within the state's jurisdictional wetlands. In discussion with DEP, Petitioner was informed that, in order to construct a SFWRA and make other improvements within the jurisdictional wetlands, he had to submit an application in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.007 and Chapter 373, Florida Statutes1. It was recommended that, although Petitioner only wanted to build a single-family dock at the time, he might want to apply for all of the activities planned for the future in a single application. Petitioner was concerned that such an application might lead to expenditures which he did not want to incur at the time. During the summer of 2000, Petitioner consulted the Fowler, White law firm and, after approximately two months, had confirmed to him that it would be best for him to file a single application for all the activities Petitioner planned whether now or in the future. Petitioner authorized the law firm to prepare and file such an application. Petitioner's application was submitted in December 2000, and the law firm sent Petitioner a bill for $2,200 for legal services rendered. The application itself was not placed in evidence, but it was possible to infer some of its content from other evidence. DEP responded to Petitioner's application in January 2001 with a Request for Additional Information (RAI). When Petitioner consulted Fowler, White about a response to the RAI, he was informed that it would require another $15,000 to $20,000 of attorney fees and $25,000 to $30,000 of other professional fees to respond and prosecute the application to completion. In response, Petitioner terminated the relationship with Fowler, White and advised DEP to communicate only with him. Petitioner then responded to the RAI himself by letter dated February 22, 2001. He advised DEP that, in view of the costs associated with aspects of his application other than the proposed dock, as well as other factors, he was "withdrawing that portion of our permit application that deals with filling those portions of the property the DEP has delineated as a wetland." However, he continued to dispute the informal jurisdictional wetlands delineation, notifying DEP that he was "refuting the wetland delineation on the basis of section 62-340.550, F.A.C." and was "requesting in writing what would be considered by the DEP as sufficient hydrologic records or site specific hydrologic data of such a duration, frequency, and accuracy to demonstrate that the records or data are representative of the long-term hydrologic conditions, including the variability in quantity and seasonality of rainfall." (Emphasis in original letter.) If there was no such information available, Petitioner requested a meeting or an agreement "to outline the terms of study, including data collection, the specific model, model development and calibration, and model verification as stated in said section 62- 340.550, F.A.C." As for his proposed dock, Petitioner responded separately that he could not provide the requested information until DEP advised him if the proposed dock was in a Resource Protection Area (RPA) 1, 2, or 3. While DEP was preparing a reply to Petitioner's response to the RAI, Petitioner sent DEP several more letters in the succeeding months. Among other things, these letters repeated Petitioner's request for advice as to the RPA status of the location of his proposed dock. Also, by letter dated March 26, 2001, Petitioner made clear that he was not requesting, and refused to agree to, a formal delineation of the jurisdictional wetlands on his property; and yet by letter dated April 30, 2001, Petitioner informed DEP that he was still waiting for a response to his request to challenge DEP's jurisdictional wetland delineation under Rule 62-340.550. As Petitioner's letters kept coming in, DEP never finalized its reply, and Petitioner did not receive a response to his request until May 2001. One draft of a reply stated that DEP would involve its Wetland Evaluation and Delineation section in Tallahassee to assist in the disputed wetlands delineation on Petitioner's property at no cost to Petitioner and would have directed Petitioner to John Tobe, Ph.D., of that office "for more information regarding hydrologic records and site specific hydrologic data necessary to refute the Department's wetland delineation pursuant to 62-340.550, F.A.C." But this letter apparently never was finalized or sent, and there was no evidence that the information in the draft letter ever was imparted to Petitioner. On May 9, 2001, DEP sent Petitioner a letter preliminarily evaluating his application. Notwithstanding Petitioner's attempt to delete portions of the application dealing with fill of delineated wetlands, the evaluation addressed the entire application and presumed that proposed dredge and fill activities would occur in jurisdictional wetlands. As for the proposed dock, DEP's preliminary evaluation notified Petitioner: that it extended more than 20 percent of the width of the river at that location, contrary to Rule 18- 20.004(5)(a)1; that the proposed terminal platform was 225 square feet, contrary to Rule 18-20.004(5)(b)6; and that it extended out from the shoreline to a depth greater than -4 feet, contrary to Rule 18-20.004(5)(b)3. (None of these citations refers to special requirements for docks in an RPA.) DEP then suggested, based on "a thorough evaluation of the project location," how Petitioner could amend his application to cure those defects, including for Petitioner's use a scaled drawing of a proposed dock alignment in relation to a large bed of paspaladium geminatum (also known as knot grass or Egyptian paspaladium) (RPA 1) and some disturbed knot grass (RPA 2) determined by DEP to exist in the river at the project location. In response, Petitioner wrote DEP a letter dated May 21, 2001, stating that DEP's preliminary evaluation ignored prior correspondence amending Petitioner's proposed dock application which Petitioner said cured the very defects cited in the preliminary evaluation. (None of this alleged previous correspondence was placed in evidence or, except as discussed in Petitioner's letter dated May 21, 2001, referenced in other testimony or evidence.) Petitioner's letter then attached a drawing of the amended proposed dock and repeated the substance of the alleged prior amendments to the dock application: reduction of the length of the dock to 40 feet from the waters edge, terminating in water -3 feet deep, to comply with Rule 18- 20.004(5)(a)1 and Rule 18-20.004(5)(b)3; and reduction of the size of the terminal platform to 160 square feet to comply with Rule 18-20.004(5)(b)6 (although the exact dimensions of the terminal platform were left undetermined, and it appeared from the attached drawing that the 160 square foot terminal platform was alongside the end of the access pier). Petitioner's letter dated May 21, 2001, acknowledged that DEP's proposed alternative alignment and dock structure was designed to avoid the RPA 1 and RPA 2 knot grass beds determined by DEP to exist at the project location. But Petitioner pointed out that under DEP's proposed alignment mooring pilings would have to be eliminated from Petitioner's project, or else they either would encroach into the 25-foot setback from the downriver neighbor's riparian line or the dock structure would have to be moved further upriver, which would place it directly over the knot grass bed. Petitioner's letter dated May 21, 2001, also acknowledged that DEP's drawing depicted the area where Petitioner proposed to place the dock as covered with RPA 1 and RPA 2 knot grass. However, Petitioner's letter disputed the accuracy of DEP's depiction, maintaining that "the area described . . . as 'disturbed emergent grassbed' in fact is an area where the weeds have begun to encroach into the existing access channel and cut off access to the property." On June 4, 2001, DEP issued a Consolidated Notice of Denial. Despite Petitioner's attempt to delete portions of his application dealing with fill of delineated wetlands, the Consolidated Notice of Denial addressed and denied Petitioner's original application in its entirety. In so doing, it also addressed at length Petitioner's position that his proposed fill activities were planned to take place in areas upland of and outside DEP's jurisdictional wetlands and that no ERP was required. In response to DEP's Consolidated Notice of Denial, Petitioner requested an administrative proceeding. During the course of this proceeding, Petitioner has made it clear that he has deleted portions of his application dealing with fill of delineated wetlands, leaving only the application for an ERP and consent of use for his proposed dock. However, he also seeks a determination that DEP's jurisdictional wetlands do not extend landward to the areas Petitioner plans to fill. Jurisdictional Wetlands Delineation DEP's first informal jurisdictional wetlands delineation on February 24, 2000, was performed by Blake Meinecke and Brad Rosenblatt. Both had experience performing jurisdictional wetland delineations for DEP. At the time, Meinecke had been a DEP employee for three years; Rosenblatt had been with DEP for about a year and a half. They walked the property, took photographs, took some soil samples, made field notes, and placed seven flags on the property signifying the landward extent of jurisdictional wetlands at those points. They connected the flags to delineate a jurisdictional wetlands boundary line. The field notes and jurisdictional wetlands boundary delineation indicated that the first flag was placed three feet from the downriver property line and 145 feet landward of the river shoreline; the second flag was placed 28 feet upriver from the first flag and 149 feet from the river shoreline; the third flag was placed 53 feet upriver from the second flag and 113 feet from the river shoreline; the fourth flag was placed 75 feet upriver from the third flag and 97 feet from the river shoreline; the fifth flag was placed 102 feet upriver from the fourth flag and 92 feet from the river shoreline; the sixth flag was placed 121 feet upriver from the fifth flag and 108 feet from the river shoreline; and the seventh flag was placed 147 feet upriver from the sixth flag and 111 feet from the river shoreline. It is not clear from those documents whether the seventh flag was placed directly on Petitioner's upstream property line or at some distance inside the property line. The field notes suggested the presence of two sweet gum trees near the landward extent of the jurisdictional wetlands in the vicinity of the second flag, a bay tree within the jurisdictional wetlands closer to the river between the second and third flags, four bay trees2 within the jurisdictional wetlands at approximately the same distance from the river between the fourth and sixth flags, and bay trees and "osmunda" within the jurisdictional wetlands between the sixth and seventh flags. An Enforcement Inspection Report prepared in connection with the informal wetlands delineation added more specifics, indicating the presence of Magnolia virginianica [sic],3 Liquidambar sturaciflua [sic], Acer rubrum, and Osmunda regalis. It also indicated the presence of "[v]egetated tussocks/hummocks," which were referred to as "hydrologic indicators," and a "[m]ucky modified mineral layer present, greater than 2' [sic] within the first 6 inches." The photographs depicted mucky soils near the river shoreline; it is not clear from the photographs how far landward the obviously mucky soils extend. DEP's second informal jurisdictional wetlands delineation on May 23, 2000, was performed by Allen Shuey, who has 16 years of experience doing and teaching jurisdictional wetlands delineations for DEP and its predecessor agency, assisted by Blake Meinecke. Shuey first re-staked the flags in the positions indicated in the first informal delineation and took soil samples. First, samples were taken in areas where confirmation of muck soils appeared likely. Then soil samples were taken in sandier-looking places farther upslope away from the river where wetland species Shuey saw growing made him suspect that the soils had to be mucky under the sand. Altogether at least 6-20 soil samples were taken. They confirmed to Shuey that the soil was indeed mucky, even where covered with a thin layer of sand. Shuey made some field notes and adjusted the placement of the seven flags on the property signifying the landward extent of jurisdictional wetlands at those points. He then connected the flags to delineate an adjusted jurisdictional wetlands boundary line. As indicated by Shuey's field notes and jurisdictional wetlands boundary delineation, Shuey adjusted the first two flags towards the river, the first by 26 feet and the second by 15 feet; he adjusted the next five flags landward, the third by 21 feet, the fourth by 17 feet, the fifth by 28 feet, the sixth by 14, and the seventh by 8 feet; he also moved the seventh flag upriver by 5 feet. Generally, Shuey moved the boundary line closer to the river on the downriver side of the property and away from the river on the upriver side. As a result, the sweet gum trees no longer were within the jurisdictional wetlands,4 and Petitioner had them removed. Shuey's field notes listed numerous plant species, including water hemlock, dogwood (blue), cephalanthis [sic], Jack-in-the-Pulpit, centella, apios (potato Bear), Boja Maria, Woodwardia, royal fern, and climbing hydrangia [sic] (on sides). Like Meinecke and Rosenblatt before him, Shuey failed to list either of the wetland species Shuey says prompted him to take soil samples farther upslope. His best explanation for these failures was that the lists were not meant to be exhaustive, but he also characterized the failures as "unfortunate." As will be seen, one of the species--Saururus cernuus (common name, lizard's tail)--was later listed in answers to interrogatories; the other-osmunda cinnamomea (a/k/a cinnamon fern)--was never mentioned before Shuey's final hearing testimony. Shuey's notes also indicated mucky mineral soils (2 inches within the first 6 inches), ferns on tussocks, and moisture on the bottom layer of wood chip fill on the property. Except for stating that the climbing hydrangea was "on sides," Shuey's notes did not specify the location of the plants, soils, or moist wood chips on the property. Shuey's Enforcement Inspection Report prepared in connection with his informal wetlands delineation indicated the presence of: Magnolia virginianica [sic], Liquidambar sturaciflua [sic], and Acer rubrum in the tree canopy; Boja maria cylindrica, Cutica mexicana, Cephalanthis [sic] occidentalis, and Cornus foemina in the understory; and herbaceous Woodwardia virginica, Arisaema triphylum, Centella spp., and Osmunda regalis. It also indicated the presence of "[v]egetated fern tussocks/hummocks," which were referred to as "hydrologic indicators," and a "[m]ucky modified mineral layer present, greater than 2' [sic] within the first 6 inches." Shuey's Enforcement Inspection Report also noted: "Vegetation on the property has apparently been cleared since the original inspection of the complaint." Meinecke visited Petitioner's property again on April 23, 2001, with DEP Environmental Specialist Pete Slezinski, who manages biological and resource issues in the Rainbow River Aquatic Preserve. However, they traveled by boat and focused on the proposed dock alignment; they did not consider wetland jurisdictional issues on this visit. DEP's Consolidated Notice of Denial issued on June 4, 2001, stated in part: Selective removal of both herbaceous and canopy species appeared to have taken place within the wetland area. Mulched vegetation remnants from the removal activity appears to have been spread within the bayhead. The bottom of the mulch layer appeared to be moist. The canopy of the wetland area is dominated by sweet bay (Magnolia virginianica [sic]), an obligate wetland species, red maple (Acer rubrum) and sweet gum (liquidambar styraciflua) which are facultative wet wetland species. The understory within the wetland area contained false nettle (Boja maria cylindrica), water hemlock (Cutica mexicana) and buttonbush (Cepahalanthis [sic] occidentalis) which are obligate wetland species, along with blue dogwood (Cornus foemina) a facultative wet wetland species. Herbaceous and groundcover species observed within the wetland area were jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphylum), pennywort (Centella sp.), Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), which are facultative wet wetland species, along with royal fern (Osmunda regalis), an obligate wetland species. Soil samples taken throughout the wetland area indicated a prevalent mucky mineral layer at least 2 inches thick, and within the first 6 inches. Hyrologic indicators on site include the presence of fern tussocks. DEP's Consolidated Notice of Denial also stated: Maps and topographic aerials obtained by the Department show that the property is located on the inside of a bend in the Rainbow River. Because of the project location on the point bar, and its associated lower water velocities, the shoreline experiences higher siltation rates due [to] the deposition of suspended solids as the water slows. It can also be observed from historic aerials that the limits of the wetland area on the property have remained constant since 1972. Through Shuey's authorship, DEP also responded to Petitioner's discovery interrogatories in this case on the subject of the jurisdictional wetlands delineation. Except as pointed out in subsequent findings, Shuey's testimony supported the interrogatory answers. Apparently not wanting to stumble into an inadvertent admission that there are two separate wetlands on Petitioner's property, DEP declined to accept Petitioner's requests in several of the interrogatories that, in answering them, DEP "[c]onsider the area upland of the row of bay trees and area water ward [sic] of the bay trees separately." DEP responded consistently that there was "no justification" to do so since "[t]he wetland area delineated" was "one wetland area." Shuey testified that he actually does consider different parts of wetlands separately in certain circumstances. For example, in this case, where there was canopy, he considered the canopy vegetation; where the canopy had been cut, he looked at under-story or, if there was no under-story, ground cover; where there was not even any ground cover due to mowing, he looked only at soils. He used different means of analyzing the different areas in the exercise of professional judgment. Shuey's testimony was not always clear as to exactly how he analyzed the different areas so as to arrive at his jurisdictional wetlands delineation. Asked in Petitioner's interrogatories "whether any portions of Petitioner's property is considered . . . 'inundated' or 'saturated'," DEP responded that the wetlands jurisdictional boundary established by DEP on Petitioner's property was based on the "area [being] considered 'inundated' and 'saturated' to the extent that the area supports water dependent vegetation and has soils which have developed 'Hydric Soil Indicators.'" Asked in Petitioner's interrogatories for "any records of hydrologic evidence of regular and periodic inundation and saturation," DEP limited its response to a 1972 topographic map, a 1996 aerial map, and a Soil Survey published in 1979. Asked in Petitioner's interrogatories to explain how DEP applied "reasonable scientific judgment . . . in evaluating all reliable information," DEP responded that it included within the jurisdictional wetlands land "from the river to where two wetland indicators consistently occurred together, the presence of obligate and facultative wetland plants and soils which had hydric indicators such as the presence of peat soils and/or soils which had a mucky layer or texture." DEP also stated that the 1979 Soil Survey confirmed that soils in the area were "labeled a poorly drained soil unit (Pm-Placid sand)." Asked to detail its analysis, DEP stated: Much of the vegetation in the wetland area had been removed by the Petitioner prior to the [sic] any site visits by the Department. Some of the canopy vegetation was removed and virtually all of the under-story and ground cover had been removed. In determining if the area was a wetland the Department was forced to look at the remaining vegetation [in] all three strata and the remains of vegetation (stumps, branches, leaves etc.) plus the soils in determining that this area was a wetland. A compete species list for the wetland area was not compiled . . .. Only dominant species and species which are crucial to determining the upland edge of the wetland were recorded and/or noted specifically. Species noted on site or recorded in notes but not included in the Denial include: At this point in the answer, DEP listed the following plants listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-340: in the canopy, Quercus laurifolia (laurel oak), Persea palustris (swamp bay), Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm); in the under-story, Cornus foemina (swamp dogwood), Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle); and, as ground cover, Saururus cernuus (lizard's tail). DEP also listed as ground cover Apios americana (groundnut), which is a vine not listed in the Florida Administrative Code but which a wetland plant. (Vines are not listed in Rule 62-340.450 because it can be difficult to determine where they originate.) DEP stated that it could not answer Petitioner's interrogatory asking for percentages of upland, obligate, facultative wet, and facultative vegetation in the canopy, under- story, and ground cover for two reasons: first, "Petitioner had removed part of the canopy" and "virtually eliminated" the under- story and ground cover (although, DEP maintained, "the dominance of wetland species in an area still can be determined by examination of stumps, vegetation re-sprouts, and the remains of vegetation (branches leaves, etc) which remain"); and, second, no specific cover estimates by strata were taken. Notwithstanding DEP's answers to interrogatories, Shuey insisted in testimony at final hearing that he did visually estimate percentage of cover in the canopy (although he did not make a note of his estimate) and applied test (b) of Rule 62- 340.300(2) to delineate the wetlands on Petitioner's property. When Petitioner asked at final hearing, Shuey provided an estimate of greater than 80 percent cover of obligate and facultative wetland species in the canopy, at least in the forested area closer to the river, based on recently-cut stumps. Pressed further by questioning by DEP counsel, Shuey increased the estimate to "probably greater than 85%." It was clear from the testimony, but it appears that Shuey meant to also qualify the 85 percent coverage estimate to apply to canopy in the forested part of the wetlands based on recently-cut stumps. It appears that the recently-cut stumps included in Shuey's canopy cover estimate are the Persea palustris (swamp bay) reintroduced through DEP's interrogatory answers to the list of species in the canopy after having been deleted from earlier lists and replaced by Magnolia virginiana (sweet bay). As reflected in the previous findings, DEP's interrogatory answer was the first mention of any kind of oak being on the property. This interrogatory answer was given after Petitioner took the position that there were several large laurel oaks (Quercus hemisphaerica) on the property. After the interrogatory answer, Petitioner took the position that Shuey used the incorrect scientific name in the interrogatory answer's listing of the canopy vegetation in the wetland area. In testimony at final hearing, Shuey acknowledged that the interrogatory answer's listing of the canopy vegetation in the wetland area was in error in giving laurel oak as the common name of Quercus laurifolia; he testified that he meant to list swamp bay as the common name for that species. Actually, Quercus laurifolia is an incorrect scientific name; swamp bay is one of the common names for the facultative wetland species, Quercus laurifolia Michauxii. (Another common name for that species is swamp chestnut oak.) Perhaps misled by Shuey's errors, Petitioner also erred in contending that swamp laurel oak cannot be used as either an obligate or a facultative wetland species under test (b) because Quercus laurifolia is not listed under Rule 62-340.450. Quercus laurifolia is not listed, but Quercus laurifolia Michauxii is. In addition to the confusion in naming the different oak species, it also is not clear from the evidence whether the oaks considered by Shuey in estimating canopy cover percentages were laurifolia Michauxii or hemisphaerica. Shown photographs of a number of oak trees on the property, Shuey was unable to identify the species with any certainty. As previously indicated, it was not clear that Shuey testified to a canopy cover percentage for the delineated wetlands area as a whole (as opposed to just the forested portion). But Shuey clearly conceded that, if the trees he identified as laurifolia Michauxii were actually hemisphaerica, the percentage of obligate and facultative wetland species in the canopy of the delineated wetlands area as a whole would be less than 80 percent. As reflected in previous findings, DEP's interrogatory answer was the first mention of lizard's tail being on the property. No lizard's tail or cinnamon fern was evident in any of the photographs placed in evidence by Petitioner. But these photographs were taken by Petitioner in February 2001, well after DEP's site visits; and the evidence was that Petitioner now regularly mows the area upland of the line of bay trees on his property. Even if any lizard's tails or cinnamon ferns were there at the time of the photographs, it is not clear whether the photographs would have been taken close enough or with the necessary resolution to detect these plants, depending on their growth stage. As previously indicated, it appears that in applying test (b) Shuey may have estimated canopy coverage based on recently-cut stumps; he also may have "dropped strata" in places where canopy trees had been cut or were nonexistent so as to estimate cover percentages for lower strata. In places where all vegetation was removed and mowed, it appeared that he relied on soil characteristics. Shuey's testimony at final hearing appears to have been the first explicit notice to Petitioner that DEP also applied test (d) of Rule 62-340.300(2) to delineate the wetlands on Petitioner's property (although it is possible to glean from a fair reading of the interrogatory answers that DEP was not only relying on test (b)). Although Shuey's testimony was not clear, it appears that he may have used test (b) for the part of the wetlands closer to the river and test (d) for the part landward of the line of bay trees. It appears that the indicators DEP variously referred to as vegetated or fern tussocks or hummocks and relied on under test (d) were essentially thick root mats. Like elevated patches of soil that allow plants to grow in places frequently inundated or saturated, these elevated root mats similarly allow plants to survive those conditions. It was not clear from the evidence exactly where Shuey saw these vegetated or fern tussocks and hummocks. Shuey conceded that they did not exist throughout the area DEP delineated as jurisdictional wetlands on Petitioner's property. Neither Shuey, Meinecke, or Rosenblatt took any pictures to verify where these indicators were on the property or even specifically noted or reported exactly where they were found. Although Shuey maintained that some of these indicators were seen landward of the line of bay trees on the property, it is not clear from the evidence whether they actually were found on that part of the property. Shuey testified at final hearing that, contrary to the interrogatory answers, he did not use the 1972 topographic map or any aerial photography in delineating jurisdictional wetlands on Petitioner's property and did not see how they would be useful in this wetlands delineation. He thought their only usefulness in connection with this case might have been to determine whether any wetland vegetation had been removed. DEP also re-called William Vorstadt on the subject of DEP's jurisdictional wetlands delineation on Petitioner's property. Vorstadt visited the site twice, the second time in January 2002, and concurred with Shuey's jurisdictional boundary line. Vorstadt took two sample soil borings, one between the boundary line and the line of bay trees and another landward of the boundary line. Both samples revealed wet, hydric soils which Vorstadt considered to be hydrologic indicators of inundation. At the time of Vorstadt's visits, the area between the line of bay trees and the boundary lined had been well-mowed in the vicinity of the flags Shuey placed on the property. Vorstadt was unable to determine much about the vegetation that might have been there; nor could he determine much about vegetation that might have been there in the past. There was no evidence that any holes were dug at any time by any DEP personnel to establish the level of the water table on Petitioner's property. There was no evidence to establish the seasonal high water table on the property. Petitioner contended that development on lots upriver and downriver from Petitioner's property altered the hydrology on Petitioner's property so that hydric soils can no longer form or be sustained, and wetland vegetation adapted for life in saturated soils no longer can be supported there. But, except with respect to narrow strips of land along the boundary lines between Petitioner's property and the adjoining lots upriver and downriver, there was no evidence whatsoever to prove Petitioner's contention in this regard. (In addition, the evidence was clear that there are at least some jurisdictional wetlands on Petitioner's property.) It appeared from photographs introduced into evidence by Petitioner that relatively narrow strips of land along the boundary lines between Petitioner's property and the adjoining lots upriver and downriver are higher than the rest of Petitioner's property, giving the impression of ridges along the property boundary lines, especially the upriver boundary line. These ridges approximately coincide with the land upriver of the seventh flag and downriver of the first flag placed on the property during DEP's informal wetlands delineations. Petitioner suggested that these ridges were formed when the neighboring property owners filled their lots as part of development and that fill material spilled over onto the property Petitioner purchased. Shuey agreed in testimony that, if the ridges were the result of fill that altered the character of the land, so as to no longer be periodically inundated and saturated, and no longer support wetland plant species, the land no longer would be considered jurisdictional wetlands. However, while it appears that the upriver ridge may well have been part of a berm along that boundary line, there was no proof as to how the smaller apparent ridge on the downriver side came to be. In addition, it was not clear from the evidence whether the ridges should be included in the jurisdictional wetlands on Petitioner's property. Petitioner attempted to utilize various aerial photographs to establish that his property had no jurisdictional wetlands because they showed only evergreen trees. But the only witness who spoke to the aerials was Shuey; and, while acknowledging his inability to discern wetlands from the aerials, Shuey refused to agree that the aerials showed only evergreen trees or that they showed only non-wetlands on Petitioner's property. Besides, as previously found, it was clear that there are at least some jurisdictional wetlands on Petitioner's property. Shuey testified persuasively that the aerials are of little or no use in determining where to draw the line between jurisdictional wetlands and uplands on Petitioner's property. Petitioner introduced in evidence several exhibits to establish that in late 1993 the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) delineated jurisdictional wetlands on the adjacent lot upriver from Petitioner's (the Thurman lot) and on a lot four lots downriver from Petitioner's property (the Grant lot). Petitioner contended that the landward extent of those wetlands delineations "approximated Control Elevation A, the top of the bank of the river which approximates the 31 foot contour line known as Control Elevation A the 10 year flood line." But the exhibits themselves are considered insufficient to prove all of Petitioner's contentions, and Petitioner introduced no other testimony or evidence to explain those wetlands delineations (except the testimony of Shuey, who refused to agree with all of Petitioner's contentions). It is not even clear from the evidence exactly where Control Elevation A, the 31-foot contour line, and 32-foot contour line are in relation to DEP's jurisdictional wetlands boundary on Petitioner's property. In addition, the relevance of the Grant wetlands delineation four lots downriver is questionable; it seems quite possible that site-specific conditions of Petitioner's property, which is at the center of the inside of a bend in the river, would result in a different wetlands delineation. As for the Thurman lot, it appears from some of the exhibits that Petitioner's property (at least on the upriver side of the lot) is lower than the Thurman lot; and the apparent 31-foot contour line sweeps significantly farther landward as it approaches and enters Petitioner's property. It seems that this might explain why wetlands on Petitioner's lot could be larger than those on the Thurman lot. At best, these exhibits raised suspicions that SWFWMD might have approved a wetlands jurisdictional boundary that approximated Control Elevation A (approximately the 31-foot contour line); if so, it also is possible that those delineations were done in error, or that the wetlands delineation methodology used by SWFWMD in 1993 was somewhat different from the current methodology codified in statute and rule, or both.5 Petitioner also introduced numerous exhibits relating to the construction of the canoe launch ramp, boathouse, and observation deck facilities at Rainbow Springs State Park near the river's head. Given the greater distance from Petitioner's property, these exhibits are even less relevant than the exhibits relating to the Grant lot. As Shuey testified, wetlands jurisdictional delineations are site-specific. In addition, like the Grant and Thurman lot exhibits, the State Park exhibits themselves are considered insufficient to prove all of Petitioner's contentions, and Petitioner introduced no other testimony or evidence to explain them (except the testimony of DEP witnesses, who refused to agree with all of Petitioner's contentions). At best, these exhibits raised suspicions that SWFWMD might have approved a wetlands jurisdictional boundary at the State Park that approximated either the shoreline or Control Elevation A (approximately the 31-foot contour line) and that DEP's facilities at the State Park might have been built in part on jurisdictional wetlands. Similarly, Petitioner introduced several generalized topographic and soils maps intended to prove that there are no wetlands on Petitioner's property, or perhaps that Petitioner's property is identical to the Grant and Thurman lots and the State Park property. But these generalized maps were insufficient to prove Petitioner's contentions. The maps themselves are considered insufficient to prove all of Petitioner's contentions, and Petitioner introduced no other testimony or evidence to explain them (except the testimony of Shuey, who refused to agree with all of Petitioner's contentions). Petitioner contended that DEP used one of the topographic maps to support a favorable wetlands delineation in its application to SWFWMD for a permit for the facilities at the State Park. But it actually appears that the map was only used as a location map. Proposed Single-Family Dock Neither party introduced into evidence either Petitioner's consolidated ERP/consent of use application or DEP's RAI. As a result, it cannot be determined from the evidence precisely what Petitioner has proposed or what additional documentation DEP requested. No cross-sections or plan views of the proposed project were in evidence. The only document submitted into evidence by Petitioner to illustrate his proposed dock structure was a partial copy of Petitioner's correspondence to DEP dated May 21, 2001. The letter referred to four attached drawings, but only one was attached to Petitioner's Exhibit 3B. The drawing included in the exhibit was not drawn "to-scale." In addition, it is unclear from the drawing whether the 160 square foot "terminal platform" included the four-foot walkway adjacent to the platform. As Petitioner suggested, the square footage of the terminal platform could be clarified in a final order. A more serious matter is the dock alignment. When the proposed dock is superimposed on DEP's drawing showing the existing knot grass beds adjacent to Petitioner's property, the proposed dock appears to cross and terminate over an area that is either an RPA 1 (knot grass beds "of the highest quality and condition for that area") or an RPA 2 (an area where the knot grass is "in transition with either declining resource protection area 1 resources or new pioneering resources within resource protection area 3"). See Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.003(54)-(55) for definitions of RPA 1 and RPA 2. Petitioner contended that his proposed dock alignment actually crosses and terminates over an area "characterized by the absence of any significant natural resource attributes" so as to be neither an RPA 1 nor an RPA 2, but rather an RPA 3. See Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.003(56) for definition of RPA 3. There was evidence of some hydrilla (an aquatic plant not considered "significant" but rather a harmful, invasive, exotic nuisance plant) in the vicinity of his proposed dock alignment between the water's edge and the knot grass beds, but Petitioner's evidence did not prove that the knot grass in the vicinity of Petitioner's proposed dock alignment is not continuous--i.e., that there is a clear path or channel between two separate beds of knot grass; to the contrary, the evidence was that the knot grass bed in the river adjacent to Petitioner's property is one continuous bed, mostly RPA 1 and some RPA 2. In addition, the evidence was that at least some of the area of declining knot grass in the vicinity of Petitioner's proposed dock alignment was thicker, more vigorous, and of better quality in the not-too-distant past. It is not clear from the evidence when it was thinned out. In addition, citing Joint Prehearing Statement of Undisputed Facts 29 and 30, Petitioner contended that his dock application fell victim to an invalid DEP policy that all resources in an aquatic preserve are "significant" so as to be either RPA 1 or RPA 2. The evidence failed to prove that DEP has such a policy. Indeed, Joint Prehearing Statement of Undisputed Facts 29 and 30 are to the contrary. While there may be room for Petitioner to quarrel with the interpretation of the RPA 1 and RPA 2 definitions given by one of DEP's witnesses (Pete Slezinski, who thought that any area having native vegetation or animals would be either an RPA 1 or RPA 2), Petitioner did not dispute that knot grass beds have "significant natural resource attributes" so as to qualify as RPA 1 or RPA 2. Petitioner also contended that he was singled out for denial of his proposed dock--i.e., that his would be the first and only dock on the Rainbow River to be denied a permit. Other than some aerial photographs indicating that a neighbor's dock may terminate in the vicinity of a spring head, Petitioner introduced no evidence whatsoever about the circumstances of any dock on the river except for DEP canoe launch ramp, boathouse, and observation deck facilities at the Rainbow Springs State Park near the head of the Rainbow River. The aerial photographs were inconclusive as to how close the neighbor's dock was to the spring head. There also was no evidence as to whether the neighbor's dock was permitted under the DEP rules now in effect or, if so, any particulars of the neighbor's dock application. Petitioner introduced a great deal of evidence concerning the DEP facilities at the State Park upriver. There were numerous photographs, some before construction of the facilities and many more during and after construction. There also was testimony from Slezinski, who had raised questions about initial plans for construction of the facilities. But Slezinski testified to his understanding that steps were taken in response to his concerns so as not to place facilities over any RPA 1 or RPA 2. Viewing the photographs, he was unable to conclude, and it is not clear, that any facilities were in fact placed over any RPA 1 or RPA 2 at the State Park. Petitioner also contended that DEP's denial of his dock application is a punitive measure, not supported by the facts, to deny him water access to his property. As evidence, Petitioner cited DEP's preliminary evaluation contained in its letter dated May 9, 2001, which cited some general requirements for docks in an aquatic preserve but did not specify any of the special requirements for docks over RPA 1 and RPA 2. But the preliminary evaluation contained a proposed dock alignment obviously intended to avoid RPA 1 and RPA 2 to the extent possible. The preliminary evaluation suggested that DEP would grant a modified application (minus mooring piling) in the proposed alignment meeting all of the general requirements. Petitioner attempted to modify his application by letter dated May 21, 2001, to address the general requirements cited in the preliminary evaluation, but he declined DEP's suggested dock alignment. As a result, in considering the modified application, DEP was constrained to apply the special requirements for docks in an RPA 1 or RPA 2. Contrary to Petitioner's contentions, these actions by DEP did not prove any intent to punish Petitioner. Finally, Petitioner contended that certain special rules for docks over RPA 1 or RPA 2--namely, those requiring minimum spacing between deck planks and requiring decking to be elevated--should not be applied because the knot grass in the river adjacent to Petitioner's property is "emergent," i.e., it grows from the bottom to and above the surface of the river and, Petitioner contends, "does not need the same concessions to assure . . . light penetration for the continued survival of the plants." Besides being essentially a rule challenge, a matter addressed in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner introduced no evidence of the facts he alleges in support of his contention. To the contrary, Petitioner called Slezinski on the subject, and Slezinski attempted to explain that, while knot grass is "emergent," much of the plant is below the water surface and provides the functions of submerged aquatic vegetation. It would follow, and Petitioner put on no evidence to disprove, that knot grass also would have some of the needs of submerged aquatic vegetation for light penetration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP a final order denying Petitioner's application for an ERP and Sovereign Lands Consent of Use for his proposed single-family dock and declining to rule on the jurisdictional wetlands delineation issue for lack of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is reserved for ten days to rule on the pending motions, if necessary. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent owns real property located in Township 2 North, Range 7 East, Section 32, in Madison County, Florida, that has surface water flowing through it and is encompassed within what is defined as "wetlands." Respondent is in control and possession of the property in question and all work on the property that is material to this proceeding is under the control or direction of the Respondent. There were access roads on the property as early as 1973 as reflected by Respondent's exhibit 2, a 1973 aerial photograph, but the width of the roads or the existence of ditches or culverts cannot be determined from the photograph. Petitioner's exhibit 2, a 1981 aerial photograph, shows the roads still in existence in 1981 but the width of the roads or existence of ditches or culverts cannot be determined from the photograph. Sometime before the Respondent purchased the property and began construction to expand the roads, ditches and culverts were in place; however, there was no evidence as to when the ditches and culverts came to be in place. A 1976 survey of the property reflects 60 foot roads which were to provide access to platted but unrecorded lots. These roads had not been constructed when Respondent purchased the property or began construction to expand the roads. The newly constructed portions of the road indicates an attempt to build the roads in accordance with the 1976 survey. The previously existing roads attempted to follow the natural contour of the land and as a result were not always straight, and only had a negligible effect on the flow or storage of surface water in regard to the property. Sometime around October 1987, Respondent began to rebuild and construct roads on the property by straightening existing curves, removing fill material from adjacent wetlands to widen and heighten the existing roadbed or construct a new roadbed, and to increase the depth and width of existing ditches or dig new ditches. The initial portion of the existing road providing access to the property from the county graded road has been substantially rebuilt with portion of the roadbed being 40 to 43 feet wide. Ditches along this portion of the roadbed have had their width increased up to 14 feet and their depth increased up to 6 and 8 feet. Other portions of the road has been expanded beyond the previously existing roadbed by increasing the width and height of the roadbed. The increased size of the ditches and the expanded roadbed has increased the interception of surface water above that already being intercepted by the previous roadbed and ditches and, as a result, there is an increased amount of surface water impounded or obstructed. The effect is that surface water is removed from Respondent's property at a faster rate than before road construction began and, as a result, sheet flow of surface water is decreased which diminishes the storage of surface water on the property. Although new culverts were installed during road construction, there was insufficient evidence to show that these new culverts were in addition to the culverts already in place or if they replaced old culverts. There was insufficient evidence to show that the new culverts allowed water to flow in a different direction or be removed from the property at a faster rate than before or if they impounded or obstructed surface water more so than before. The previously existing roads had sufficiently served an earlier timber harvest on the property and, by Respondent's own testimony, were sufficient for his ongoing hog and goat operation. The extensive rebuilding and constructing of roads in this case was neither necessary nor a customary practice for construction of farm access roads in this area. Respondent is engaged in the occupation of agriculture in that he has a bona fide hog and goat operation. However, Respondent's silviculture occupation is somewhat limited in that he is presently harvesting the timber but shows no indication of replanting or continuing the forestry operation upon completing the present harvesting operation. The extensive rebuilding and constructing of roads in this case goes beyond what is necessary or is the customary practice in the area for a hog or goat operation or forestry operation such as Respondent's and is inconsistent with this type of agriculture or silviculture occupation. Respondent has never applied for nor received a surface water management permit from the Petitioner even though the Petitioner has informed Respondent that a permit was required for the work being done on his property. The present alteration of the topography of the land by Respondent has obstructed and impounded surface water in such a fashion that the interruption of the sheet flow of surface water has been increased, causing the storage of surface water on the property to be diminished. At the present time, Respondent has been enjoined by the Circuit Court of Madison County, Florida, from any further activity on this project. However, should Respondent be allowed to complete this project, it is evident that the sole and predominant purpose would be to impound and obstruct the sheet flow of surface water and diminish the storage of surface water on the property in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Suwannee River Management District, enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, Norman Leonard, to: (a) remove all unauthorized fill material placed within jurisdictional wetlands and return those areas to predevelopment grades and revegetate with naturally occurring local wetlands species to prevent erosion; (b) back fill excavated swale ditches, return road beds and excavated ditches to predevelopment condition and grades and seed disturbed non-wetland areas with a 50:50 mix of bahia and rye grass and; (c) refrain from any other development until and unless a required permit is obtained for such development. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1445 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2.-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 4.-7. Are unnecessary findings for this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as conclusions of law. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 17. 26.-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 31.-32. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 35.-38. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 39.-42. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1. The first paragraph adopted in Finding of Fact 16. The balance is rejected as a conclusion of law. 2.-3. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Not a finding of fact but a statement of testimony. However, it is subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The more credible evidence is contrary to this finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice F. Baker, Esquire Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 Norman Leonard, Pro Se Route 2, Box 172-D Live Oak, Florida 32060 Donald O. Morgan Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District Route 3, Box 64 Live Oak, Florida Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The canal that Riverview dredged is paralleled on either side by canals of like length, man-made at an earlier time, which also connect with Little Battle Creek in Citrus County. Little Battle Creek (which was itself deepened by dredging in 1960) flows into the Homosassa River. Riverview dredged the canal and filled surrounding marshland without first securing a permit from any governmental agency. At the time Riverview undertook these dredge and fill operations, respondent Department of Environmental Regulation was not in existence. The Department of Pollution Control and the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, state governmental agencies which were in existence at that time, took no formal action of any kind on account of Riverview's activities. Garcia Road, originally a causeway through a marsh, runs perpendicular to the canals. Before Riverview filled, water from marshland lying east of Garcia Road drained through culverts under Garcia Road into the canals and the creek. Since Riverview filled, however, rain storms result in standing water on Garcia Road, which may persist for as long as a week. The day before the final hearing water on Garcia Road was a foot deep. Such drainage as now occurs involves water moving across a stretch of Garcia Road north of the obstructed culverts, and through homeowners' yards, which has precipitated dramatic erosion of the property affected. The topsoil covering the fingers of land on either side of the canal that Riverview dredged is sand fill, which is not very stable. A man is able to penetrate ten feet with a reinforcing rod, without hammering. On both of these fingers, roads running their respective lengths constitute the highest elevation. There are lift stations on either peninsula, the tops of which are flush with the ground. The to of the septic tank system installed across Garcia Road from the canal is two or three feet above ground. The vegetation in the canal indicates nocturnal deficiencies of dissolved oxygen. By studying water amples, an employee of respondent Department of Environmental Regulation determined that microscopic life exists in some diversity where Battle Creek joins the Homosassa River, in less variety upstream from the canal that Riverview dredged, and in still less diversity in the mouth of the canal that Riverview dredged. At the end of the canal opposite the creek, there was at most a single species of microscopic organism. Coliform bacilli are not present in the canal in significant numbers. Respondent Charles A. Lenz owns 70 percent of the stock issued by respondent Riverview Estates, Inc., and respondent Billy G. Black owns 20 percent. Messrs. Lenz and Black or one of them negotiated with Mickey Bryant, an environmental specialist employed by respondent Department of Environmental Regulation, to reach the proposed consent agreement received in evidence as the Department's exhibit No. 1. Essentially, the agreement contemplates that Riverview will shorten both fingers of land by removing fill dirt from the ends of the peninsulas in a specified manner; dispose of the fill dirt in a manner specified by the agreement; take specified steps to prevent erosion of the truncated fingers of land; plug the canal so as to convert the end opposite the creek into a holding or treatment pond separate from the canal; and convey to the State of Florida a tract of land in excess of 58 acres, which borders the creek along the bank opposite the canal. During a recess at the final hearing, negotiations began which have since eventuated in an addendum to the proposed consent agreement, providing that Riverview shall (within 90 days restore drainage conditions from the lands lying East of Garcia Road opposite the project identified in this agreement to those which existed prior to the dredging and filling activities conducted by Riverview as aforesaid. It is understood that this undertaking may require the opening or replacement of a culvert under Garcia Road and the extension of a drainage system from its Western end to a canal spilling into Battle Creek. It is also understood that completion of this undertaking shall be subject to permission and direction of the proper authorities of Citrus County.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's objections to the proposed consent agreement be deemed no impediment to respondents' entry into the agreement. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23 day of September, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Ben Daniel, Jr., Esquire 101 Northwest Third Street Ocala, Florida 32670 Mr. Alfred Clark, Esquire 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John Montgomery Greene, Esquire 19 North Pine Street Ocala, Florida 32670 CONSENT AGREEMENT This Consent Agreement made and entered into this 29th day of July, 1976, by and between the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (hereafter the Department), and Mr. Billy G. Black, Mr. Charles A. Lenz and Riverview Estates, Incorporated, Citrus County, Florida (hereafter Riverview). WHEREAS, on or before a period of time from July to September, 1972, Riverview or its predecessors has dredged and connected a canal to Battle Creek, Citrus County; Florida, and filled marsh lands adjacent to said Battle Creek without an appropriate and valid permit from the Department. WHEREAS, the Department maintains that Riverview or its predecessors by engaging in the above described dredging and filling activities did violate Chapter 403.087 Laws of Florida which states that: "No stationary installation which will reasonably be expected to be a source of air or water pollution shall be operated, maintained, constructed, expanded, or modified without an appropriate and currently valid permit issued by the department, unless exempted by department rule." NOW, THEREFORE, for the purpose of compromise and settlement of the claims set forth above and in consideration of the Department's forebearance from civil litigation of any kind and forebearance of Riverview from civil litigation of any kind, the parties hereto, hereby stipulate, consent and agree to the following items and conditions: I For the purpose of this Agreement, all references to specific items and geological locations in or adjacent to Battle Creek, Citrus County, Florida, shall be directed to the drawing labeled Riverview Estates, J. Frederic Blitstein, Inc., Environmental Planners and Arden-Green Architects, Inc., attached hereto as Attachment "A", aerial photograph attached hereto as Attachment "B", and DER survey attached hereto as Attachment "C". II Riverview hereby consents and agrees to: Within 90 days, remove all fill materials from Areas I & II, as shown on Attachment "C", and restore said areas to preexisting marsh grade and elevation. The ground level elevation of the adjacent undisturbed marsh lying across Battle Creek shall be used as a guide if necessary. Fill materials removed may be placed in the canal to raise the depth of the canal to -5' MLW and/or upon uplands as defined by Chapter 17-4.02, Florida Administrative Code. No fill shall be placed upon any other location otherwise requiring a permit from the department. A natural sawgrass fringe and dirt berm shall be left at the westernmost (waterward) extreme of Areas I & II while fill is being removed. This berm will serve as a temporary siltation barrier and reduce siltation of Battle Creek during fill removal operations. Upon removal of all fill, the temporary berm shall be removed, leaving the undisturbed perimeter fringe of sawgrass. If natural marsh grasses do not sufficiently revegetate the area of fill removal so as to provide a marsh cover within one year, the department will require Riverview to re-establish the marsh cover by replanting with sawgrass and cattail clumps. Within 90 days install a plug in the canal at the location shown on Attachment "C". Construction of the plug shall be in accordance with the drawing shown on Attachment "A". Within 90 days, install a riprap bulkhead at the eastern edge of Areas I and II. Utilize the upland portion of the plugged canal as a catch basin for water runoff from the adjacent filled areas. Leave existing perimeter vegetation in along the canal between the plug and Battle Creek. Perform no further dredging, filling, or other works in or on the undisturbed transitional or submerged zones, as defined by Chapter 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code, of Battle Creek, prior to receiving written authorization from the Department or receiving notice from the Department that the proposed activities are exempt from permitting requirements. Allow duly authorized representatives of the Department access to the property at reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting progress of the aforementioned work. Donate to the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund approximately 58.4 acres of land shown on Attachment "B" and further described as follows: The north 58.4 acres of the west 1/2 of SW 1/4 of 531, Tl9S, R17E, lying northerly of the westerly prolongation of the north line of that certain parcel described in Official Records Book 3, Page 103, Public Records of Citrus County, Florida, as follows: Beginning at a point in the SW corner of Lot 59 of the Homosassa Company Subdivision of the SW 1/4 of Section 31, Township 19 South, Range 17 East, and thence running North 233 feet coincidental with the west line of said Lot 59 to a point in the said west line, as the Point of Beginning; thence westerly 453 feet to a point; thence northerly 480 feet to a point; thence easterly 453 feet to a point, which is the NW corner of said Lot 59; thence continuing southerly along the west line of said Lot 59, 480 feet to the Point of Beginning Less and except any westerly portion of the filled lands of Riverview Estates which may lie within the west 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of 531, Tl9S, Rl7E. III The Florida Department of Enviromental Regulation for and in consideration of the foregoing hereby consents and agrees to: Not require additional removal of fill materials or restoration of sawgrass marsh under lots number 1-40. Not require backfilling of the artificial canal east or west of the plug. Not require removal of any electrical or sewer improvements westerly of the end of the road pavement and within the restoration areas. Not hold Riverview liable for civil damages or penalties described in Chapter 403.141, Florida Statutes. DONE AND EXECUTED this 29th day of July, 1976, in the Office of the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RIVERVIEW ESTATES, INC. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION Charles A. Lenz, as a Joseph W. Landers, Jr. principal stockholder Secretary P.O. Box 980 2562 Executive Center Cir., E. Homasassa Springs, FL Montgomery Building 32647 Tallahassee, FL 32304 Billy G. Black, as a principal stock holder P.O. Box 886 Homasassa Springs, FL 32646 ADDENDUM TO CONSENT AGREEMENT The Consent Agreement dated July 29, 1976, which Billy G. Black, Charles A. Lenz and Riverview Estates, Inc. (referred to therein and herein as Riverview) have offered to enter into with the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (the Department) is hereby amended and Riverview' s offer extended and enlarged by adding to Article II an additional paragraph designated "(j)" which shall provide as follows: Within 90 days restore drainage conditions from the lands lying East of Garcia Road opposite the project identified in this agreement to those which existed prior to the dredging and filling activities conducted by Riverview as aforesaid. It is understood that this undertaking may require the opening or replacement of a culvert under Garcia Road and the extension of a drainage system from the culvert into the basin described in II (e). If the drainage into this basin is not feasible, Riverview may propose other alternatives which shall be subject to the approval of the Department. It is also understood that completion of this undertaking shall be subject to permission and direction of the proper authorities of Citrus County. When executed by the Department, this shall become a part of the Consent Agreement aforesaid. EXECUTED by Riverview this day of November, 1977. RIVERVIEW ESTATES, INC. by: Billy G. Black Charles A. Lenz STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION JOSEPH W. LANDERS, JR. Secretary 2562 Executive Center Circle, E. Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about August 11, 1987 an application for conditional use approval to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages (4COP) was filed on behalf of Joseph W. McGoldrick for property located at 2848 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida. The property is zoned general commercial (CG) and multiple family residential (RM-12). A public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board was held on September 1, 1987. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-1 to grant conditional use approval for this application. A timely appeal was taken by Petitioners on September 15, 1987. Petitioners are surrounding property owners whose property is located within five hundred feet of the subject property. With this application, McGoldrick seeks approval for on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages since he intends to convert the use of the property to a nightclub. The parties stipulated that the property in question is within five hundred feet of several residences, including Petitioners'.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Environmental Protection is the state agency responsible for permitting involving water quality and the dredging and filling of wetlands as defined in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Stephen J. Dibbs, owns 20.03 acres of land located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Dale Mabry Highway with Hoedt Road, north of Tampa in Hillsborough County, Florida. The property consists of 11.27 acres of non-jurisdictional uplands and 8.76 acres of forested jurisdictional wetlands which divide the property somewhat diagonally in a northwest to southeast direction. There are uplands along the entire western boundary of the property along Dale Mabry Highway and Zambito Road, as well as in the southwestern portion of the property. The property is surrounded by commercial, residential and multifamily development and is zoned by Hillsborough County for commercial use. The deeper portions of the wetlands area are dominated by cypress trees and the transitional wetlands areas include laurel oak, American elm, red maple and dahoon holly. These wetlands currently provide habitat for fish and other wildlife and provide for water storage and treatment. This is a high quality forested wetlands which performs the valuable wetlands functions outlined above. It is subject to the Department's permitting procedures. Mr. Dibbs purchased the property in 1989 knowing at the time of purchase that jurisdictional wetlands were located thereon as defined by a previously conducted Departmental jurisdiction determination. He also knew that at the time of purchase there was no vehicular access/egress to the property via Hoedt Road. On April 26, 1994, Mr. Dibbs submitted a revision to his previously submitted application No. 292103383 for a permit to fill a portion of the wetlands on his property described above. Thereafter, on August 19, 1994, the Department issued its Intent to deny the requested permit and on August 31, 1994, Mr. Dibbs filed a timely Petition to contest the agency action. The parties agree, and it is found, that: The subject project does not occur within an Outstanding Florida Water. The project will not negatively impact any threatened or endangered species. The project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The project will not adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources, Mr. Dibbs proposes to fill 2.014 acres of wetlands located at the western end of his property. The impacts to this filled parcel will be permanent in nature. The project, as originally envisioned in the March, 1992 application by Mr. Dibbs, called for the filling of approximately 4 acres of wetlands for a large commercial development and a "Par 3" golf course. In the permitting process, the Department must first determine if the project is in the public interest, and the cumulative impact of the proposed project is a part of that public interest determination. Efforts at minimization of the proposed project's impact on the wetlands are made at that time and the applicant's proposal for mitigation cannot be considered until he has established he cannot otherwise meet the statutory standards by minimizing the proposed impacts to wetlands by avoiding them or by reducing the amount of wetlands area impacted. In the course of negotiations with and at the request of the Department, Mr. Dibbs modified the project to eliminate the golf course and reduce the size of the commercial development, which resulted in a decrease in the amount of fill from approximately 4 acres to the presently sought 2.014 acres. As a part of the permitting process, and in support of mitigation efforts, the Department suggested five modifications to Mr. Dibbs which it felt would make the project permittable. These were: Further minimization of wetlands impacts by a re-orientation of buildings, roads and parking areas/spaces or a reduction in the number of commercial sites to allow the remaining operations to be better fitted into available uplands with less spill-over into wetlands. Limitation of impact to the fringe areas of the wetlands rather than the interior. Investigating the feasibility of moving the Pier One Import or any other facility back from Dale Mabry and turning Chick-Fil-A and China Coast sideways to lesser their direct impacts. Maintain the concept of vertical retaining wall use along the wetlands construction line as proposed. Mitigate for the reduced wetlands encroach- ments at a creation ratio of 1.5:1 with tree spade transplants at 15 foot centers, interplanted with 3 gallon or larger pot plants to create a 10'X10' overall plant spacing, and the dedication of the mitigation area and all remaining wetlands to the Department in a perpetual conservation easement. Of these proposals, the vertical retaining wall, (4), and the submission of a mitigation plan, (5), were part of Petitioner's April, 1994 modification. There remains, however, some resistance to the dedication of the wetlands and mitigation area by a perpetual easement. The Department admits that the turning of the Chick-Fil-A and China Coast facilities sideways is not practicable. Since the remaining suggestions essentially involve eliminating two of the four commercial sites, Mr. Dibbs, determining that such action would render the development economically infeasible, rejected those suggestions. The Department suggested modifications to the Dibbs project which limited the wetlands fill to approximately 0.5 to 0.7 acres by having only two restaurants with a truck access from Hoedt Road. While there is an issue as to the economic viability of the Department's suggestion, that suggestion is practicable from an engineering standpoint, notwithstanding the opinion of Mr. Mai, Petitioner's expert. It would also meet both the parking requirements of the Hillsborough County Land Development Code and the corporate requirements of General Mills, the owner of such mid-priced sit-down restaurants as Olive Garden and China Coast, as proposed here. Nonetheless, after Petitioner's initial application was filed in 1992, consistent with the Department's mitigation suggestions, Mr. Dibbs did make certain modifications to the proposed project in an effort to minimize its impact on the environment. This accounted for the elimination of the previously considered miniature golf course and a reduction in size of the development which reduced the required amount of fill from 4 acres to 2.014 acres. The project, as described in the current application under consideration, is what Petitioner considers the smallest the project can be made and still be economically feasible. As presently envisioned by Petitioner, the development project will encompass approximately 8 acres and will include four (4) freestanding commercial facilities, including two sit-down restaurants, an Olive Garden Restaurant and a China Coast Restaurant; a fast food restaurant, Chick-Fil-A; and a retail facility, Pier One Imports, all along the western boundary of the property fronting Dale Mabry Highway and Zambito Road. The Chick-Fil-A would be located in the northwest corner of the development almost entirely on what is presently forested wetlands. The Pier One Imports store would be on what is presently forested wetlands, south of the Chick-Fil-A and north of the China Coast restaurant which, itself, would involve some impacts to forested wetlands. The Olive Garden restaurant would be located on the southwest corner of the property south of the China Coast. It is the only building in the proposed development which would not involve some wetlands impact. Due to the length of time involved so far in obtaining permits for the development, both Pier One and General Mills, the parent for China Coast and Olive Garden, have withdrawn their agreements with Mr. Dibbs to utilize his property though they remain interested in them. At one point, General Mills offered Petitioner $1.6 million for the Olive Garden and China Coast properties. Mr. Dibbs has entered discussions with other prospective tenants but all have space requirements similar to those envisioned in the present planned development. He has found, generally, a greater demand for space than there are sites available. These space requirements convince him that the minimum encroachment that would satisfy his development plans is the 2.014 acres proposed. Any further reduction in encroachment would result in a need to change the development proposal which, Mr. Dibbs claims, would negate the economic viability of the development. In order for minimization to be effective and not inappropriate, it must result in the applicant still having a project which is economically viable. Economic viability means that the estimated value of the project as completed under minimization would be equal to or exceed its estimated cost. The Department's evidence tends to indicate that a project limited to an Olive Garden restaurant and a China Coast restaurant would be economically viable. Further, the Department contends that same evidence indicates that a commercial project limited to the two out parcels, at the southern portion of the project site would also be economically viable and profitable, if not as profitable as Petitioner originally anticipated. That contention has not been shown to be so. Dr. William C. Weaver, Barnett Professor of real estate and business valuation at the University of Florida and a forensic economist, utilizing figures provided by Petitioner, by deposition indicated that Petitioner had, as of the date of the testimony, incurred development costs totaling $746,000. Weaver also estimated that fill costs for the project as modified would be an additional $100,000. Wetlands replacement and monitoring, (mitigation) would cost an additional $100,000, and the cost of obtaining access to Hoedt Road would be an additional $100,000. For the purposes of calculating a rate of return, Dr. Weaver assumed the development would be limited to the two parcels on the southern portion of the site, with access to Hoedt Road down the length of the site in some manner. These sites, he concluded, have a present value of $850,000 even though not all costs have as yet been incurred. Future development of the two parcels would, in Weaver's estimation, result in a value for the project of $1.6 million. The rate of return, then, with a present value of $850,000 and a future value of $1.6 million, would be approximately 9.5 percent to 10 percent. If an additional sum of $200,000 for fill and mitigation is figured in, Dr. Weaver opines the Petitioner's rate of return would still be in the 9.5 percent to 10 percent range. Accepting Dr. Weaver's analysis and the cost estimates on which it is based, for the purpose of argument, then the project, modified as proposed by the Department, would be profitable. It should be noted here that the cost figures utilized by Dr. Weaver in his calculation were those provided by Petitioner. There is a high demand for commercial property in the vicinity of Petitioner's proposed project. Petitioner's site is one of the few remaining undeveloped parcels in the north Dale Mabry corridor, a high per capita income area which constitutes a market area encompassing a three to five mile radius from the property. Even with Pier One and General Mills pulling out, there is evidence that another restaurant chain, Golden Corral, has offered to construct a restaurant on the southern portion of the property. The western edge of the property, for the most part, abuts Dale Mabry Highway with the exception of a small section to the south which abuts Zambito Road. Zambito Road, a two-lane, county maintained, road extends northward from Ehrlich Road to a point where it merges with the northbound lanes of Dale Mabry Highway, at that point a twelve lane divided state highway. Vehicular access and egress to and from the proposed project would be, in part, via Zambito Road. Northbound traffic on Dale Mabry could enter the project by turning right, an access presently approved by the Department of Transportation. As presently designed and approved, however, the Dale Mabry entrance would be a narrow and difficult access for service vehicles. Patrons could exit the project into the northbound lane of Dale Mabry only by a right hand turn, and only if a change in permitting by the Department of Transportation would allow access onto Dale Mabry. That access would not involve any wetlands impact and this proposal is the subject of a current application to the Florida Department of Transportation on which administrative hearing is currently pending. If and when approved, any access or egress from or to Dale Mabry, calls for a fifty foot turning radius. Another source of access to and egress from the project can be via Hoedt Road, a two lane road maintained by the county, which runs east and west north of Petitioner's property line and to which Petitioner currently has no legal right to vehicular access. The intersection of Hoedt Road and Dale Mabry Highway is controlled by a signal light and is located to the north of the northwest corner of the proposed development. Petitioner expects to purchase rights to vehicular access to his development from Hoedt Road from the owner of the narrow strip which runs between the road and the northern boundary of the property. The proposed access-egress point would be located along the northern property line approximately 230 feet due east of the Hoedt/Dale Mabry intersection. Through this access, a customer traveling north on Dale Mabry could enter the development by turning right onto Hoedt Road while a customer travelling south on Dale Mabry would do so by turning left, (east), onto Hoedt Road. In both cases, the customer would then turn right, (south), into the development. A customer leaving the development via the northern access would turn either north or south onto Dale Mabry at its intersection with Hoedt Road. The Hoedt Road access point would be the primary means of access-egress for semi-trailers/commercial vehicles servicing the businesses in the development. The existing site plan provides for these vehicles to proceed directly behind the buildings for service. A third access-egress point exists or could exist off of Zambito Road at the southwest corner of the property. A customer northbound on Zambito Road could make a right turn into the proposed development or could exit the development by turning either left or right onto Zambito, the former heading south on Zambito and the latter travelling north a short distance to where Zambito joins with Dale Mabry. This access could, with modification of the development plan, allow a semi-trailer to enter and exit the site from onto Zambito Road to provide service to the businesses situated on the site. Mr. Dibbs finds this an unacceptable arrangement, however. He claims the Zambito Road entrance is a difficult intersection since it is not served by a traffic signal. As currently designed, the existing plan calls for a total of 430 parking spaces while the county only requires a minimum of 344 spaces for the four businesses. The parking scheme as proposed was considered necessary to meet the requirements expressed by Mr. Dibbs' proposed tenants. It is likely that other, substitute, tenants would have similar parking requirements. The Department has proposed a modification to Petitioner's development plan which would eliminate approximately 30 parking spaces proposed. This would still provide a number of parking spaces sufficient to meet both the county's minimum requirements and the reasonable requirements of proposed tenants. The Department has suggested that access to the development by commercial vehicles be by the Hoedt Road entrance. It would modify the access road in such a way that it would "snake" around the existing wetlands. This would, however, result in a commingling of semi trucks, smaller delivery vehicle, and customer vehicles within the interior of the development and this would not be desirable either from a safety or a business standpoint. Ease of access, as opposed to mere access, has, in the past, been considered by the Department as a valid evaluator of practicability. For this reason, and based on many of the access considerations mentioned above, Petitioner's engineering expert, Mr. Mai, considered that access from Hoedt Road must, of necessity, be straight in to the back of the buildings, and, assuming there are to be the four buildings as proposed, this position is unrebutted by the Department. Elimination of the Hoedt Road access would be impractical. Another factor to be considered on the issue of the economic practicability of minimization is that of visibility. Commercial enterprises generally must be visible to draw customers so as to be economically viable. Dale Mabry Highway is a high volume thoroughfare. The businesses on the development, medium price sit-down restaurants and an import store, all of a chain variety, cater not only to a destination oriented clientele but also to a spontaneous clientele as well. It is imperative, therefore, that these businesses be able to be seen from Dale Mabry. Petitioner claims that the elimination of the two northern commercial sites as a part of minimization would adversely affect the visibility of the two remaining sites. First, he claims, the cypress stand in the northwest portion of the wetlands would interfere with the vision of those coming down from the north. He also asserts that potential customers proceeding in a southerly direction on Dale Mabry would not be able to see the remaining businesses in enough time to make an entrance choice at Hoedt Road. They would, therefore, have to proceed south on Dale Mabry for a significant distance to the next signal, turn east and proceed to Zambito Road, and turn north again to come up Zambito Road to either an access point on the far south end of the property or to the turn right off the northbound lane of Dale Mabry. Taken together, these factors and the reduction in the number of businesses on the development site would discourage customer use, and in the opinion of Petitioner's economist and development consultant, would result in the two remaining businesses not surviving more than one year. This point appears well taken. The Department has also suggested that Petitioner replace pavement parking at the site with grassed parking; grade the landscape strips and parking medians for storm water treatment; utilize porous concrete for parking; utilize vertical as opposed to sloped retaining walls: and provide mitigation at a 1.5:1 ratio. The use of grassed parking was rejected on the basis of a safety hazard to women wearing high heeled shoes. The other suggestions were accepted by Petitioner. Some consideration was given to the fact that the property owned by Mr. Dibbs at this site includes 5.12 acres of uplands at the northeast corner of the property of which at least one acre would be needed for the proposed use as the mitigation area. The northern property line runs almost due east 1309.04 feet. The most westward point of the northeast uplands crosses the northern property line just about half way back from Dale Mabry Highway. The uplands in question is currently zoned for one single family home per acre but if re-zoned might provide for two homes per acre. The surrounding land use, however, makes re-zoning unlikely. In addition, access to that property is unavailable unless a road were to be built across the wetlands from Dale Mabry. The cost of this road construction, the additional land needed for mitigation of the wetlands used for the road, and the cost of development infrastructure would make it impracticable to use the back uplands for anything. The term "economic justification" as construed by the Department includes the access, visibility and parking consideration previously discussed in addition to other regulatory requirements and like issues. The Department has taken the position that any type of economic return on investment or cost benefit analysis is not an appropriate consideration in a permitting decision. Petitioner contends that the additional minimization suggestions proposed by the Department, when considered in the context of engineering, safety, design and development, and the minimal potentiality for continued viability of any business located on the property encumbered by those suggestions, are not practicable. The failure of the Department to consult with its staff economist regarding this project, and the paucity of demonstrated departmental familiarity or experience with economics, at least among permitting personnel, may lend some credence to this argument. The Department has, until now, followed a policy of consistency in treating applications similar to the instant application. Generally, requests for minimization include such items as vertical retaining walls, use of porous concrete, bridges, culverts and other matters, all of which fall short of requiring actual redesign of the proposed project. In the instant case, the Department proposes the elimination of approximately 50 percent of the project as minimization before considering mitigation. Turning to the issue of mitigation, notwithstanding the predictions of success by Petitioner, it appears that only the smallest part of any mitigation attempted is successful in the long run, and that for the most part, wetlands lost through dredging and filling is not replaced. Nonetheless, the parties, including the Department, continue to work within the fiction that mitigation can compensate for the destruction of existing wetlands when an applicant is otherwise unable to meet the criteria set forth in the statute. There can be little doubt that this project, as applied for, may adversely affect habitat and their wetlands functions of storm water attenuation, treatment and storage. It is of a permanent nature. The purpose of mitigation is to offset the impact of development. Whereas here the Department has indicated that only 3.021 acres of mitigation wetlands need be created to offset the 2.014 acres of wetlands destroyed, a 1.5:1 ratio, Petitioner proposed to create 4.49 acres of new wetlands, a 2.25:1 ratio without the suggested conservation easement. The proposal submitted by Petitioner, he believes, will be successful. This remains to be seen and success is not at all guaranteed. Presuming success, however, for the sake of discussion, the mitigation site will be directly adjacent to and contiguous to existing wetlands and immediately will be come a part of and subject to Department wetlands regulatory jurisdiction. If successful, the proposed mitigation would offset the adverse impacts of the project. Still another area for consideration is that concerning storm water runoff. Storm water is currently collected from Dale Mabry Highway and drains into a ditch paralleling Petitioner's highway frontage. From there, the water ultimately flows into the wetlands on his property. The current Department of Transportation system affords no treatment to the storm water before it is released onto the Petitioner's property. This storm water can reasonably be expected to contain oils, greases and other contaminants. Petitioner has proposed to include in his project a system designed to treat this highway runoff and improve its quality before it is released into the waters of the state. This system will treat the water by percolate, removing approximately 80 percent of the pollutants. In addition to treating and improving storm water runoff, the system proposed by Mr. Dibbs should provide a higher degree of water storage than currently exists for a net improvement to the environment over existing conditions. Taken together, Petitioner contends the above matters indicate there will be no adverse cumulative impacts resulting from the granting of the permit. There is some indication that the higher mitigation ratio offered by Petitioner could become a precedent for other similar projects. If that were to be the case, the resulting cumulative impact would be a positive rather than negative factor. Nonetheless, it is clear that future applications must stand on their own merit and independently stand the scrutiny of the cumulative impact test, as must the instant application. Turning to the conservation easement suggested by the Department as a condition of approval, the agency contends such an easement would allow it to reduce its requirement for mitigation from a 1.5:1 ratio to a 1:1 ratio. The Department has held in the past, it is suggested, that an applicant's agreement to provide more than the minimum acceptable mitigation can justify the lack of an easement. Mr. Dibbs contends here, and it would so appear, that his agreement to provide more than the required amount of mitigation, when coupled with the fact that the mitigated area will be a part of the Department's wetlands permitting jurisdiction, obviates any need to provide a conservation easement either to offset any adverse impact or to protect against adverse cumulative impact of the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Permit No. 292103383, to dredge and fill 2.014 acres of jurisdictional wetlands in Hillsborough County, Florida be issued to Petitioner herein, Stephen J. Dibbs, subject to mitigation herein at a rate of no less than 1.5:1 and under such lawful and pertinent conditions as may be specified by the Department. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. & 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. First two sentences accepted. Balance is restatement of testimony. & 23. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but more a comment on the evidence. 25. & 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27. Accepted. 28. & 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 31. & 32. Accepted. 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. - 36. Accepted. 37. Accepted. 38. - 40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. More a Conclusion of Law than a Finding of Fact. 42. Accepted and incorporated herein. 43. - 45. Accepted. 46. Accepted and incorporated herein. 47. More a Conclusion of Law than a Finding of Fact. 48. & 49. Accepted and incorporated herein. 50. - 53. Accepted and incorporated herein. 54. More a Conclusion of Law than a Finding of Fact. 55. - 57. Accepted. 58. Accepted and incorporated herein. 59. More a Conclusion of Law than a Finding of Fact. 60. & 61. Accepted but redundant. 62. Not a Finding of fact but a Conclusion of Law. 63. - 65. Accepted but redundant. 66. Accepted and incorporated herein. 67. - 69. Accepted. 70. - 74. Accepted. 75. - 81. Accepted and incorporated herein in substance. 82. & 83. Accepted. 84. - 88. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. - 15. Accepted. 16. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27. - 30. Accepted and incorporated herein. 31. - 34. Accepted and incorporated herein. 35. - 39. Accepted. 40. - 48. Accepted and incorporated herein. 49. & 50. Accepted and incorporated herein. 51. & 52. Accepted. 53. - 60. Accepted. 61. - 64. Accepted and incorporated herein. 65. Rejected as contra to the better evidence. 66. - 69. Accepted and incorporated herein. 70. Rejected as contra to the better evidence. 71. & 72. Accepted. 73. - 75. Accepted. 76. - 81. Accepted. 82. - 87. Accepted 88. Accepted and incorporated herein. 89. & 90. Accepted and incorporated herein. 91. & 92. Rejected as contra to the better evidence. 93. Accepted and incorporated herein. 94. - 96. Accepted and incorporated herein. 97. & 98. Accepted. 99. Accepted and incorporated herein. 100. & 101. 102. Rejected. Accepted as Department's definition. 103. Not proven. 104. - 106. Not relevant to ultimate issue. 107. 120. - - 119. 124. Not a proper Finding of Fact but a restatement the testimony of a witness. Accepted as stipulated facts. of FOR THE INTERVENOR: Noted. Accepted. - 9. Accepted. - 14. Accepted. Not a proper Finding of Fact but a conclusion as to the legal sufficiency of the evidence. - 21. Accepted as statements of the Department's non-Rule policy. 22. - 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. 25. Accepted. 26. Accepted. 27. & 28. Accepted. 29. Rejected. 30. & 31. Accepted. 32. Accepted. 33. Rejected. 34. Accepted. 35. Not proven. Accepted. Accepted. & 39. Rejected. Accepted as the witness' opinion. Accepted. - 45. Accepted and incorporated herein. 46. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Gary Early, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. 216 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 P.O. Box 10555 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2555 John W. Wilcox, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. Post Office Box 3273 Tampa, Florida 33601-3273 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Virigina B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and under what conditions, the Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), should grant Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 40-109-81153-1 authorizing Respondents, Jay and Linda Ginn (Ginns or Applicants), to construct a 136-unit single-family residential development with associated surface water management system.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Proposed Project Respondent, the District, is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce the cited statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rules promulgated by the District under the authority of those statutes. (Unless otherwise stated, all Florida Statutes refer to the 2003 codification, and all Florida Administrative Code Rules refer to the current codification.) Respondents, Jay and Linda Ginn, are the owners of 47 acres of land located just west of the City of St. Augustine in St. Johns County, Florida. They are seeking ERP Permit No. 40- 109-81153-1 from the District to construct a 136-acre residential community and associated surface water management facilities on the property, to be known as Ravenswood Forest. The 47-acre project site is predominantly uplands, with a large (10.98-acre) wetland (Wetland 1) located on the eastern boundary and completely separating the uplands on the project site from adjacent properties to the east. While the central portion of the site is mostly a sand pine vegetated community, and the western portion is largely a pine flatwood community, there are six other smaller wetlands scattered within the upland areas lying west of Wetland 1, each numbered separately, 2 through 7. The site is currently undeveloped except for some cleared areas that are used as dirt road trails and a borrow pit or pond excavated in the central part of the site. This clearing and excavation was accomplished in the 1980’s for a project that was never completed. The project site is bordered on the north by Ravenswood Drive. On the east lies an existing residential development probably constructed in the 1970’s; to the west of the project site is a power-line easement; and to the south is a Time Warner cable facility. The land elevations at the project site are generally higher on the west and slope off to Wetland 1 on the east. Under current conditions, water generally drains from west to east into Wetland 1. Some water from the site, as well as some water entering the site from off-site properties to the west, flows into the existing pond or borrow pit located in the central portion of the site. Under extreme rainfall conditions, the borrow pit/pond can reach a stage that allows it to overflow and discharge into Wetland 1. Some off-site water also enters Wetland 1 at its north end. Water that originates from properties to the west of the Ravenswood site is conveyed through ditches to the roadside ditch that runs along the south side of Ravenswood Drive. Water in this roadside ditch ultimately enters Wetland 1 at its north end and flows south. Once in Wetland 1, water moves north to south. Water leaves the part of Wetland 1 that is located on the Ravenswood site and continues to flow south through ditches and culverts ultimately to the San Sebastian River. The Wetland 1 system is contiguous with wetlands located on property owned by Petitioner, Marilyn McMulkin. Mrs. McMulkin lives on Hibiscus Street to the east of the project. Mrs. McMulkin is disabled and enjoys observing wildlife from her home. Mrs. McMulkin has observed woodstorks, kites, deer, cardinals, birds, otter, indigo snake, flying squirrels, gopher tortoises, and (more recently) bald eagles on her property or around the neighborhood. Mrs. McMulkin informed the District of the presence of the bald eagle in 2002, but it was not discovered until November of 2003 that there was an eagle nest on the Ginns property in Wetland 1. Petitioner, Diane Mills, owns a house and property on Hibiscus Street to the east of the Project. The proposed stormwater discharge for the Project is to a wetland system that is contiguous with a wetland system that is in close proximity to Mrs. Mills' property. Petitioners' property is not located in a flood plain identified by FEMA. Nevertheless, Petitioners' property experiences flooding. At times, the flooding has come through Mrs. McMulkin's house and exited out the front door. The flood water, which can be 18-24 inches high in some places on Mrs. McMulkin's property, comes across her backyard, goes through or around her house, enters Hibiscus Street and turns north. The flooding started in the late 1980's and comes from the north and west, from the Ginns' property. The flooding started after Mr. Clyatt Powell, a previous co-owner of the Ravenswood property, started clearing and creating fill roads on the property using dirt excavated from the property. The flooding now occurs every year and has increased in duration and frequency; the flooding gets worse after the rain stops and hours pass. The evidence, including Petitioners' Exhibit 1, indicated that there are numerous other possible reasons, besides activities on the Ginns' property in the late 1980's, for the onset and exacerbation of Petitioners' flooding problems, including: failure to properly maintain existing drainage facilities; other development in the area; and failure to improve drainage facilities as development proceeds. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners have standing to object to ERP Permit No. 40-109-81153-1. Project Description As indicated, water that originates west of the project site currently enters the project site in two ways: (1) it moves across the western project boundary; and (2) it travels north to a ditch located on the south side of Ravenswood Drive and is conveyed to Wetland 1. The offsite water that moves across the western project boundary comes from a 16-acre area identified as Basin C (called Basin 4 post-development). The offsite water that moves north to the ditch and enters Wetland 1 comes from a 106.87-acre area identified as Basin D (called Basin 5 post-development). The project’s stormwater conveyance and treatment facilities include two connected wet detention ponds with an outfall to a wetland on the eastern portion of the project site. Stormwater from most of the project site will be conveyed to a pond, or detention area (DA) DA-1, which will be located near (and partially coinciding with the location of) the existing pond or borrow pit. The water elevation in DA-1 will be controlled at a level of 26 feet. Water from DA-1 will spill over through a control structure into a pipe that will convey the spill-over to DA-2. In addition to the spill-over from DA-1, offsite water that currently enters the project site across the western boundary will be conveyed to a wetland area at the southwest corner of the project site. At that point, some of the water will be taken into DA-2 through an inlet structure. The water elevation in DA-2 will be controlled at level 21. Water from DA-2 will be released by a control structure to a spreader swale in Wetland 1. While some of the water conveyed to the wetland area at the southwest corner of the project site will enter DA-2, as described, some will discharge over an irregular weir (a low area that holds water until it stages up and flows out) and move around the southern boundary of the project site and flow east into Wetland 1. Wetland 1 is a 10.98-acre onsite portion of a larger offsite wetland area extending to the south and east (which includes the wetlands on Mrs. McMulkin's property). For purposes of an Overall Watershed Study performed by the Ginns' engineering consultant, the combined onsite and offsite wetlands was designated Node 98 (pre-development) and Node 99 (post- development). From those areas, water drains south to ditches and culverts and eventually to the San Sebastian River. Best management practices will be used during project construction to address erosion and sediment control. Such measures will include silt fences around the construction site, hay bales in ditches and inlets, and maintenance of construction equipment to prevent release of pollutants, and may include staked sod on banks and turbidity barriers, if needed. In addition, the District's TSR imposed permit conditions that require erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented. The District's TSR also imposed a permit condition that requires District approval of a dewatering plan within 30 days of permit issuance and prior to construction. The Ginns intend to retain the dewatering from construction on the project site. Wetland Impacts Onsite Wetlands Wetland 1 is a 10.98-acre mixed-forested wetland system. Its overall condition is good. It has a variety of vegetative strata, a mature canopy, dense understory and groundcover, open water areas, and permanent water of varying levels over the course of a year. These attributes allow for species diversity. Although surrounded by development, the wetland is a good source for a variety of species to forage, breed, nest, and roost. In terms of vegetation, the wetland is not unique to northeast Florida, but in November 2003 an eagle nest was discovered in it. A second wetland area onsite (Wetland 2) is a 0.29-acre coniferous depression located near the western boundary of the site. The overall value of the functions provided by Wetland 2 is minimal or low. It has a fairly sparse pine canopy and scattered ferns provide for little refuge and nesting. Water does stand in it, but not for extended periods of time, which does not allow for breeding of most amphibians. The vegetation and inundation do not foster lower trophic animals. For that reason, although the semi-open canopy would be conducive to use by woodstorks, birds and small mammals do not forage there. A third wetland area onsite (Wetland 3) is a 0.28-acre mixed-forested wetland on the northern portion of the site. The quality of Wetland 3 is low. A 24-inch culvert drains the area into a 600-foot long drainage ditch along the south side of Ravenswood Drive leading to Wetland 1. As a result, its hydroperiod is reduced and, although it has a healthy pine and cypress canopy, it also has invasive Chinese tallow and upland species, along with some maple. The mature canopy and its proximity to Ravenswood Drive would allow for nesting, but no use of the wetland by listed species has been observed. In order to return Wetland 3 to being productive, its hydroperiod would have to be restored by eliminating the connection to the Ravenswood Drive ditch. A fourth wetland area onsite (Wetland 4) is a 0.01- acre portion of a mixed-forested wetland on the western boundary of the site that extends offsite to the west. Its value is poor because: a power line easement runs through it; it has been used as a trail road, so it is void of vegetation; and it is such a small fringe of an offsite wetland that it does not provide much habitat value. A fifth wetland area onsite (Wetland 5) is a 0.01-acre portion of the same offsite mixed-forested wetland that Wetland 4 is part of. Wetland 5 has a cleared trail road through its upland fringe. Wetland 5 has moderate value. It is vegetated except on its upland side (although its vegetation is not unique to northeast Florida), has a nice canopy, and provides fish and wildlife value (although not as much as the interior of the offsite wetland). A sixth wetland area onsite (Wetland 6) is a 0.28-acre wetland located in the western portion of the site. It is a depression with a coniferous-dominated canopy with some bays and a sparse understory of ferns and cord grass that is of moderate value overall. It does not connect with any other wetlands by standing or flowing water and is not unique. It has water in it sufficient to allow breeding, so there would be foraging in it. Although not discovered by the Ginns' consultants initially, a great blue heron has been observed utilizing the wetland. No listed species have been observed using it. Wetland 6 could be good gopher frog habitat due to its isolation near uplands and its intermittent inundation, limiting predation by fish. In addition, four gopher tortoise burrows have been identified in uplands on the project site, and gopher frogs use gopher tortoise burrows. The gopher frog is not a listed species; the gopher tortoise is listed by the State of Florida as a species of special concern but is not aquatic or wetland-dependent. Woodstorks are listed as endangered. Although no woodstorks were observed using Wetland 6, they rely on isolated wetlands drying down to concentrate fish and prey in the isolated wetlands. With its semi-open canopy, Wetland 6 could be used by woodstorks, which have a wingspan similar to great blue herons, which were seen using Wetland 6. However, Wetland would not provide a significant food source for wading birds such as woodstorks. The other surface water area onsite (Wetland 7) is the existing 0.97-acre pond or borrow pit in the southwest portion of the project site. The pond is man-made with a narrow littoral shelf dominated by torpedo grass; levels appears to fluctuate as groundwater does; and it is not unique. It connects to Wetland 1 during seasonal high water. It has some fish, but the steep slope to its littoral shelf minimizes the shelf's value for fish, tadpoles, and larvae stage for amphibians because fish can forage easily on the shelf. The Ginns propose to fill Wetlands 2, 3, 4, and 6; to not impact Wetland 5; and to fill a 0.45-acre portion of Wetland and dredge the remaining part into DA-1. Also, 0.18 acre of Wetland 1 (0.03 acre is offsite) will be temporarily disturbed during installation of the utility lines to provide service to the project. Individually and cumulatively, the wetlands that are less than 0.5-acre--Wetlands 3, 6, 2, 4, and 5--are low quality and not more than minimal value to fish and wildlife except for Wetland 5, because it is a viable part of an offsite wetland with value. While the Ginns have sought a permit to fill Wetland 4, they actually do not intend to fill it. Instead, they will simply treat the wetland as filled for the purpose of avoiding a County requirement of providing a wetland buffer and setback, which would inhibit the development of three lots. Offsite Wetlands The proposed project would not be expected to have an impact on offsite wetlands. Neither DA-1 nor DA-2, especially with the special conditions imposed by the District, will draw down offsite wetlands. The seasonal high water (SHW) table in the area of DA- 1 is estimated at elevation 26 to 29. With a SHW table of 26, DA-1 will not influence groundwater. Even with a SHW table of 29, DA-1 will not influence the groundwater beyond the project's western boundary. DA-1 will not adversely affect offsite wetlands. A MODFLOW model was run to demonstrate the influence of DA-1 on nearby wetlands assuming that DA-1 would be controlled at elevation 21, that the groundwater elevation was 29, and that no cutoff wall or liner would be present. The model results demonstrated that the influence of DA-1 on groundwater would barely extend offsite. The current proposed elevation for DA-1 is 26, which is higher than the elevation used in the model and which would result in less influence on groundwater. The seasonal high water table in the area of DA-2 is 28.5 to 29.5. A cutoff wall is proposed to be installed around the western portion of DA-2 to prevent it from drawing down the water levels in the adjacent wetlands such that the wetlands would be adversely affected. The vertical cutoff wall will be constructed of clay and will extend from the land surface down to an existing horizontal layer of relatively impermeable soil called hardpan. The cutoff wall tied into the hardpan would act as a barrier to vertical and horizontal groundwater flow, essentially severing the flow. A MODFLOW model demonstrated that DA-2 with the cutoff wall will not draw down the adjacent wetlands. The blow counts shown on the boring logs and the permeability rates of soils at the proposed location of DA-2 indicate the presence of hardpan. The hardpan is present in the area of DA-2 at approximately 10 to 15 feet below the land surface. The thickness of the hardpan layer is at least 5 feet. The Ginns measured the permeability of hardpan in various locations on the project site. The cutoff wall design is based on tying into a hardpan layer with a permeability of 0.052 feet per day. Because permeability may vary across the project site, the District recommended a permit condition that would require a professional engineer to test for the presence and permeability of the hardpan along the length of the cutoff wall. If the hardpan is not continuous, or if its permeability is higher than 0.052 feet per day, then a liner will be required to be installed instead of a cutoff wall. The liner would be installed under the western third of DA-2, west of a north-south line connecting the easterly ends of the cutoff wall. (The location of the liner is indicated in yellow on Applicants' Exhibit 5B, sheet 8, and is described in District Exhibit 10.) The liner would be 2 feet thick and constructed of clay with a permeability of no more than 1 x 10-6 centimeters per second. A liner on a portion of the bottom of pond DA-2 will horizontally sever a portion of the pond bottom from the groundwater to negate the influence of DA-2 on groundwater in the area. A clay liner would function to prevent adverse drawdown impacts to adjacent wetlands. The project, with either a cutoff wall or a clay liner, will not result in a drawdown of the groundwater table such that adjacent wetlands would be adversely affected. Reduction and Elimination of Impacts The Ginns evaluated practicable design alternatives for eliminating the temporary impact to 0.18-acre of Wetland 1. The analysis indicated that routing the proposed utility services around the project site was possible but would require a lift station that would cost approximately $80,000 to $100,000. The impact avoided is a temporary impact; it is likely that the area to be impacted can be successfully reestablished and restored; and preservation of Wetland 1 is proposed to address lag-time for reestablishment. It was determined by the Ginns and District staff that the costs of avoidance outweigh the environmental benefits of avoidance. Petitioners put on evidence to question the validity of the Wetland 1 reduction/elimination analysis. First, Mr. Mills, who has experience installing sewer/water pipes, testified to his belief that a lift station would cost only approximately $50,000 to $60,000. He also pointed out that using a lift station and forced main method would make it approximately a third less expensive per linear foot to install the pipe line itself. This is because a gravity sewer, which would be required if a lift station and forced main is not used, must be laid at precise grades, making it is more difficult and costly to lay. However, Mr. Mills acknowledged that, due to the relatively narrow width of the right-of-way along Ravenswood Drive, it would be necessary to obtain a waiver of the usual requirement to separate the sewer and water lines by at least 10 feet. He thought that a five-foot separation waiver would be possible for his proposed alternative route if the "horizontal" separation was at least 18 inches. (It is not clear what Mr. Mills meant by "horizontal.") In addition, he did not analyze how the per-linear-foot cost savings from use of the lift station and forced main sewer would compare to the additional cost of the lift station, even if it is just $50,000 to $60,000, as he thinks. However, it would appear that his proposed alternative route is approximately three times as long as the route proposed by the Ginns, so that the total cost of laying the sewer pipeline itself would be approximately equal under either proposal. Mr. Mills's testimony also suggested that the Ginns did not account for the possible disturbance to the Ravenswood eagles if an emergency repair to the water/sewer is necessary during nesting season. While this is a possibility, it is speculative. There is no reason to think such emergency repairs will be necessary, at least during the approximately 20-year life expectancy of the water/sewer line. Practicable design modifications to avoid filling Wetland 4 also were evaluated. Not filling Wetland 4 would trigger St. Johns County wetland setback requirements that would eliminate three building lots, at a cost of $4,684 per lot. Meanwhile, the impacted wetland is small and of poor quality, and the filling of Wetland 4 can be offset by proposed mitigation. As a result, the costs of avoidance outweigh the environmental benefits of avoidance. Relying on ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 the Ginns did not perform reduction/elimination analyses for Wetlands 2 and 6, and the District did not require them. As explained in testimony, the District interprets ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1 to require a reduction/elimination analysis only when a project will result in adverse impacts such that it does not meet the requirements of ERP-A.H. 12.2.2 through 12.2.3.7 and 12.2.5 through 12.3.8. But ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 does not require compliance with those sections for regulated activities in isolated wetlands less than one-half acre in size except in circumstances not applicable to this case: if they are used by threatened or endangered species; if they are located in an area of critical state concern; if they are connected at seasonal high water level to other wetlands; and if they are "more than minimal value," singularly or cumulatively, to fish and wildlife. See ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(a) through (d). Under the District's interpretation of ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1, since ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 does not require compliance with the very sections that determine whether a reduction/elimination analysis is necessary under ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1, such an analysis is not required for Wetlands 2 and 6. Relying on ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.2, a., the Ginns did not perform reduction/elimination analyses for Wetlands 3 and 7, and the District did not require them, because the functions provided by Wetlands 3 and 7 are "low" and the proposed mitigation to offset the impacts to these wetlands provides greater long-term value. Petitioners' environmental expert opined that an reduction/elimination analysis should have been performed for all of the wetlands on the project site, even if isolated and less than half an acre size, because all of the wetlands on the project site have ecological value. For example, small and isolated wetlands can be have value for amphibians, including the gopher frog. But his position does not square with the ERP- A.H., as reasonably interpreted by the District. Specifically, the tests are "more than minimal value" under ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(d) and "low value" under ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.2, a. Secondary Impacts The impacts to the wetlands and other surface waters are not expected to result in adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, including endangered or threatened listed species or their habitats. In accordance with ERP-A.H. 12.2.7(a), the design incorporates upland preserved buffers with minimum widths of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet around the wetlands that will not be impacted. Sediment and erosion control measures will assure that the construction will not have an adverse secondary impact on water quality. The proposed development will be served by central water and sewer provided by the City of St. Augustine, eliminating a potential for secondary impacts to water quality from residential septic tanks or septic drainfields. In order to provide additional measures to avoid secondary impacts to Wetland 1, which is the location of the bald eagles’ nest, the Applicants proposed additional protections in a Bald Eagle Management Plan (BEMP) (App. Ex. 14). Under the terms of the BEMP, all land clearing, infrastructure installation, and exterior construction on homes located within in the primary zone (a distance within 750 feet of the nest tree) is restricted to the non-nesting season (generally May 15 through September 30). In the secondary zone (area between 750 feet and 1500 feet from the nest tree), exterior construction, infrastructure installation, and land clearing may take place during the nesting season with appropriate monitoring as described in the BEMP. Proposed Mitigation The Ginns have proposed mitigation for the purpose of offsetting adverse impacts to wetland functions. They have proposed to provide mitigation for: the 0.18-acre temporary impact to Wetland 1 during installation of a water/sewer line extending from existing City of St. Augustine service to the east (at Theodore Street); the impacts to Wetlands 3, 4 and 7; and the secondary impacts to the offsite portion of Wetland 4. The Ginns propose to grade the 0.18-acre temporary impact area in Wetland 1 to pre-construction elevations, plant 72 trees, and monitor annually for 5 years to document success. Although the easement is 30 feet in width, work will be confined to 20 feet where vegetation will be cleared, the top 1 foot of soil removed and stored for replacing, the trench excavated, the utility lines installed, the trench refilled, the top foot replaced, the area replanted with native vegetation, and re- vegetation monitored. To facilitate success, the historic water regime and historic seed source will give the re-vegetation effort a jump-start. The Ginns propose to restore and enhance a 0.12-acre portion of Wetland 1 that has been degraded by a trail road. They will grade the area to match the elevations of adjacent wetland, plant 48 trees, and monitor annually for 5 years to document success. This is proposed to offset the impacts to Wetland 4. The proposed grading, replanting, and monitoring will allow the area to be enhanced causing an environmental benefit. The Ginns propose to preserve 10.58 acres of wetlands and 3.99 acres of uplands in Wetland 1, 1 acre of upland buffers adjacent to Wetlands 1 and 5, and the 0.01 acre wetland in Wetland 5. The upland buffer will be a minimum of 15 feet wide with an average of 25 feet wide for Wetland 1 and 25 feet wide for Wetland 5. A conservation easement will be conveyed to the District to preserve Wetlands 1 and 5, the upland buffers, and the wetland restoration and enhancement areas. The preservation of wetlands provides mitigation value because it provides perpetual protection by ensuring that development will not occur in those areas, as well as preventing activities that are unregulated from occurring there. This will allow the conserved lands to mature and provide more forage and habitat for the wildlife that would utilize those areas. Mitigation for Wetlands 2 and 6 was not provided because they are isolated wetlands less than 0.5-acre in size that are not used by threatened or endangered species; are not located in an area of critical state concern; are not connected at seasonal high water level to other wetlands; and are not more than minimal value, singularly or cumulatively, to fish and wildlife. As previously referenced in the explanation of why no reduction/elimination analysis was required for these wetlands, ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(d) does not require compliance with under ERP- A.H. 12.3 through 12.3.8 (mitigation requirements) for regulated activities in isolated wetlands less than one-half acre in size except in circumstances found not to be present in this case. See Finding 44, supra. The cost of the proposed mitigation will be approximately $15,000. Operation and Maintenance A non-profit corporation that is a homeowners association (HOA) will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface water management system. An HOA is a typical operation and maintenance entity for a subdivision and is an acceptable entity under District rules. See ERP-A.H. 7.1.1(e) and 7.1.2; Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C- 42.027(3) and (4). The Articles of Incorporation for the HOA and the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions contain the language required by District rules. Water Quantity To address water quantity criteria, the Applicants' engineers ran a model (AdICPR, Version 1.4) to compare the peak rate discharge from the project in the pre-project state versus the peak rate discharge after the project is put in place. The pre-project data input into the model were defined by those conditions that existed in 1985 or 1986, prior to the partial work that was conducted, but not completed, on the site in the late 1980's. The project’s 1985/1986 site condition included a feature called Depression A that attenuated some onsite as well as offsite stormwater. Because of work that was done on the project site after 1985/1986 (i.e., the excavation of the borrow pit and road-clearing activities in the late 1980's), the peak rate of discharge for the 1985/1986 project site condition was lower than the peak rate of discharge for today’s project site condition. (Flooding at Mrs. McMulkin's house began after the work was performed on the project site in the late 1980's.) Because this partial work conducted in the late 1980's increased peak rate discharge from the site, by taking the pre-project conditions back to the time prior to that work, the peak rate of discharge in the 1985-86 pre-project condition was lower than it would be under today's conditions. The model results indicated that for the 25-year, 24- hour storm event, the pre-project peak rate discharge is 61.44 cubic feet per second (cfs). The post-project peak rate discharge is 28.16 cfs. Because the completed project reduces the pre-project peak rate discharges, the project will not cause any adverse flooding impacts off the property downstream. A similar analysis of the peak rate discharges under pre-project conditions that exist today (rather than in 1986) was compared to peak rate discharges for the post-project conditions. This analysis also showed post-project peak rate discharges to be less than the peak rate discharges from the site using today’s conditions as pre-project conditions. As further support to demonstrate that the project would not cause additional flooding downstream, a second modeling analysis was conducted, which is referred to as the Ravenswood Overall Watershed Model (OWM). The Applicants' engineer identified water flowing into the system from the entire watershed basin, including the project site under both the pre- and post-project conditions. The water regime was evaluated to determine what effect the proposed project will have on the overall peak rate discharges, the overall staging, and the duration of the staging within the basin that ultimately receives the water from the overall watershed. This receiving basin area was defined as the "wetland node" (Node 98 pre- project, and Node 99 post-project). As previously stated, the area within this "wetland node" includes more than just the portion of Wetland 1 that is located on the Ravenswood site. It also includes the areas to the south and east of the on-site Wetland 1 (including properties owned by the Petitioners) and extends down to an east-west ditch located just north of Josiah Street. The project’s surface water management system will not discharge to a landlocked basin. The project is not located in a floodway or floodplain. The project is not located downstream of a point on a watercourse where the drainage is five square miles or more. The project is impounding water only for temporary storage purposes. Based on testimony from their experts, Petitioners contend that reasonable assurances have not been given as to water quantity criteria due to various alleged problems regarding the modeling performed by the Ginns' engineer. Tailwater Elevations First, they raise what they call "the tailwater problem." According to Petitioners, the Ginns' modeling was flawed because it did not use a 19.27-foot SHW elevation in Wetland 1 as the tailwater elevation. The 19.27-foot SHW was identified by the Ginns' biologist in the Wetland 1 near the location of the proposed utility line crossing the wetland and was used as the pre-development tailwater in the analysis of the project site. The post-development tailwater condition was different because constructing the project would change the discharge point, and "tailwater" refers to the water elevation at the final discharge of the stormwater management system. (SW- A.H., Section 9.7) The post-development tailwater was 21 feet, which reflects the elevation of the top of the spreader swale that will be constructed, and it rose to 21.3 feet at peak flow over that berm. For the OWM, the final discharge point of the system being modeled was the east-west ditch located just north of Josiah Street, where the tailwater elevation was approximately 18.1 feet, not the 19.27 feet SHW mark to the north in Wetland 1. The tailwater condition used in the modeling was correct. Petitioners also mention in their PRO that "the Applicants' analysis shows that, at certain times after the 25 year, 24 hour storm event, in the post development state, Wetland 1 will have higher staging than in the predevelopment state." But those stages are after peak flows have occurred and are below flood stages. This is not an expected result of post- development peak-flow attenuation. Watershed Criticism The second major criticism Petitioners level at the Applicants' modeling is that parts of the applicable watershed basins were omitted. These include basins to the west of the project site, as well as basins to the north of the site, which Petitioners lumped into the so-called "tailwater problem." Petitioners sought to show that the basins identified by the Ginns as draining onto the project site from the west were undersized, thus underestimating the amount of offsite water flowing onto the project site. With respect to Basin C, Petitioners' witness testified that the basin should be 60 acres instead of 30 acres in size, and that consequently more water would flow into pond DA-2 and thus reduce the residence time of the permanent pool volume. In fact, Basin C is 16 acres in size, not 30 acres. The water from Basin C moves onto the project site over the western project boundary. A portion of the water from Basin C will be directed to pond DA-2 through an inlet structure, and the rest will move over an irregular weir and around the project site. With respect to Basin D, Petitioners' witness testified that the basin should encompass an additional 20 acres to the west and north. West of Basin D, there are ditches routing water flow away from the watershed, so it is unclear how water from an additional 20 acres would enter the watershed. The western boundary of the OWM is consistent with the western boundaries delineated in two studies performed for St. Johns County. Petitioners' witness testified that all of the water from the western offsite basins currently travels across the project site's western boundary, and that in post-development all of that water will enter pond DA-2 through the inlet structure. In fact, currently only the water from Basin C flows across the project site's western boundary. Post-development, only a portion of water from Basin C will enter pond DA-2. Currently and post-development, the water in Basin D travels north to a ditch south of Ravenswood Drive and discharges into Wetland 1. Petitioners also sought to show that a 50-acre area north of the project site should have been included in the OWM. Petitioners' witness testified that there is a "strong possibility" that the northern area drains into the project site by means of overtopping Ravenswood Drive. The witness' estimate of 50 acres was based on review of topographical maps; the witness has not seen water flowing over Ravenswood Drive. The Ginns' engineer testified that the area north of Ravenswood Drive does not enter the project site, based on his review of two reports prepared by different engineering firms for St. Johns County, conversations with one of those engineering firms, conversations with the St. Johns County engineer, reviews of aerials and contour maps, and site observations. Based on site observations, the area north of the project site drains north and then east. One report prepared for St. Johns County did not include the northern area in the watershed, and the other report included an area to the north consisting of 12 acres. The Ginns' engineer added the 12-acre area to the OWM and assumed the existence of an unobstructed culvert through which this additional water could enter Wetland 1, but the model results showed no effect of the project on stages or duration in the wetland. Even if a 50-acre area were included in the OWM, the result would be an increase in both pre-development and post- development peak rates of discharge. So long as the post- development peak rate of discharge is lower than the pre- development peak rate of discharge, then the conveyance system downstream will experience a rate of water flow that is the same or lower than before the project, and the project will not cause adverse flooding impacts offsite. Petitioners' witness did not have any documents to support his version of the delineations of Basins C and D and the area north of Ravenswood Drive. Time of Concentration Time of concentration (TC) is the time that it takes a drop of water to travel from the hydraulically most distant point in a watershed. Petitioners sought to show that the TC used for Basin C was incorrect. Part of Petitioners' rationale is related to their criticism of the watersheds used in the Ginns' modeling. Petitioners' witness testified that the TC was too low because the distance traveled in Basin C should be longer because Basin C should be larger. The appropriateness of the Basin C delineation already has been addressed. See Finding 71, supra. Petitioners' witness also testified that the TC used for the post-development analysis was too high because water will travel faster after development. However, the project will not develop Basins C and D, and thus using the same TC in pre- development and post-development is appropriate. The project will develop Basins A and B (called Basins 1, 2, and 3 post- development), and the post-development TC for those basins were, in fact, lower than those used in the pre-development analysis. Groundwater Infiltration in DA-2 One witness for Petitioners opined that groundwater would move up through the bottom of DA-2 as a result of upwelling (also referred to as infiltration or seepage), such that 1,941 gallons per day (gpd) would enter DA-2. That witness agreed that if a liner were installed in a portion of DA-2, the liner would reduce upwelling in a portion of the pond. Another witness for Petitioners opined that 200 gpd of groundwater would enter the eastern part and 20,000 gpd would enter the western part of DA-2. Although that witness stated that upwelling of 200 gpd is not a significant input and that upwelling of 20,000 gpd is a significant input, he had not performed calculations to determine the significance. Even if more than 20,000 gpd of groundwater entered DA-2, DA-2 will provide sufficient permanent pool residence time without any change to the currently designed permanent pool size or the orifice size. Although part of one system, even if DA-2 is considered separate from DA-1, DA-2 is designed to provide an additional permanent pool volume of 6.57 acre-feet (in addition to the 20.5 acre/feet provided by DA-1). This 6.57 acre-feet provided by DA-2, is more than the 4.889 acre-feet of permanent pool volume that would be necessary to achieve a 21-day residence time for the 24+ acres that discharge directly into DA-2, as well as background seepage into DA-2 at a rate of 0.0403 cfs, which is more upwelling than estimated by Petitioners' two witnesses. There is adequate permanent pool volume in DA-2 to accommodate the entire flow from Basin C and for water entering through the pond bottom and pond sides and provide at least 21 days of residence time. Water Quality Criteria Presumptive Water Quality The stormwater system proposed by the Ginns is designed in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rules 40C-42.024, 40C-42.025, and 40C-42.026(4). Wet detention ponds must be designed for a permanent pool residence time of 14 days with a littoral zone, or for a residence time of 21 days without a littoral zone, which is the case for this project. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-42.026(4)(c) and (d). DA-1 and DA-2 contain sufficient permanent pool volume to provide a residence time of 31.5 days, which is the amount of time required for projects that discharge to Class II Outstanding Florida Waters, even though the receiving waterbody for this project is classified as Class III Waters. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-42.026(4)(k)1. Best management practices will be used during project construction to address erosion and sediment control. Such measures will include silt fences around the construction site, hay bales in ditches and inlets, and maintenance of construction equipment to prevent release of pollutants, and may include staked sod on banks and turbidity barriers if needed. In addition, the District proposed permit conditions that require erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented. (Dist. Ex. 1, pp. 8-9, #4; Dist. Ex. 2, p. 1, ##3, 4, and 5, and p. 6, #10). ERP/MSSW/Stormwater Special Conditions incorporated into the proposed permit require that all wetland areas or water bodies outside the specific limits of construction must be protected from erosion, siltation, scouring or excess turbidity, and dewatering. (Dist. Ex. 2). The District also proposed a permit condition that requires District approval of a dewatering plan for construction, including DA-1 and DA-2, within 30 days of permit issuance and prior to construction. The Ginns intend to retain the dewatering from construction on the project site. As previously described, Petitioners' engineering witness sought to show that DA-2 will not provide the required permanent pool residence time because Basin C should be 60 acres in size. Petitioners' environmental witness also expressed concern about the capacity of the ponds to provide the water quality treatment required to meet the presumptive water quality criteria in the rules, but those concerns were based on information he obtained from Petitioners' engineering witness. Those issues already have been addressed. See Findings 77-78, supra. Groundwater Contamination Besides those issues, Petitioners raised the issue that groundwater contamination from a former landfill nearby and from some onsite sludge and trash disposal could be drawn into the proposed stormwater management system and cause water quality violations in the receiving waters. If groundwater is contaminated, the surface water management system could allow groundwater to become surface water in proposed DA-1. St. Johns County operated a landfill from the mid-1950s to 1977 in an area northwest of the project site. The landfill accepted household and industrial waste, which was buried in groundwater, which in turn could greatly enhance the creation of leachate and impacted water. Groundwater flows from west to east in the vicinity of the landfill and the project site but there was conflicting evidence as to a minor portion of the property. The Ginns' witness testified that if the landfill extended far enough south, a small part of the project site could be downgradient from the landfill. But there was no evidence that the landfill extended that far south. Petitioners' witness testified that the groundwater flow varies on the south side of the landfill so that groundwater might flow southeast toward the site. Even if Petitioners' witness is correct, the surface water management system was designed, as Petitioners' other witness agreed, so that DA-1 would have minimal influence on groundwater near the pond. In 1989, sewage sludge and garbage were placed in a pit in the central part of the project site, north of the existing pond, which also is the area for proposed DA-1; and at various times refuse--including a couple of batteries, a few sealed buckets, and concrete--has been placed on the surface of the site. In 1989, to determine the amount of sewage and garbage on the project site, the St. Johns County Health Department chose several locations evidencing recent excavation south of Ravenswood Drive, had the areas re-excavated, and found one bag of garbage and debris such as tree stumps and palmettos. In 2001, an empty 55-gallon drum was on the site; there was no evidence what it once contained or what it contained when deposited onsite, if anything. In addition, trespassers dumped solid waste on the property from time to time. Petitioners' witness searched the site with a magnetometer and found nothing significant. On the same day, another of Petitioners’ witnesses sampled with an auger but the auger did not bore for core or any other type sample; it merely measured groundwater level. In 1985, 1999, and 2000, groundwater offsite of the project near the landfill was sampled at various times and places by various consultants to determine whether groundwater was being contaminated by the landfill. The groundwater sampling did not detect any violations of water quality standards. Consultants for the Ginns twice sampled groundwater beneath the project site and also modeled contaminant migration. The first time, in 2001, they used three wells to sample the site in the northwest for potential impacts to the property from the landfill. The second time, they sampled the site through cluster wells in the northwest, middle, and south. (Each cluster well samples in a shallow and in a deeper location.) The well locations were closest to the offsite landfill and within an area where refuse may have been buried in the north- central part of the site. Due to natural processes since 1989, no sewage sludge deposited onsite then would be expected to remain on the surface or be found in the groundwater. The evidence was that the sewage sludge and garbage were excavated. Although samples taken near the center of the property contained substances that are water quality parameters, they were not found in sufficient concentration to be water quality violations. There is an iron stain in the sand north of the existing pond in the area where pond DA-1 is to be located. Based on dissolved oxygen levels in the groundwater, Petitioners' witness suggested that the stain is due to buried sewage, but the oxygen levels are not in violation of water quality standards and, while toward the low end of not being a violation, the levels could be due to natural causes. No evidence was presented establishing that the presence of the iron stain will lead to a violation of water quality standards. Petitioners' witness, Mr. Boyes, testified that iron was a health concern. But iron itself is a secondary drinking water standard, which is not a health-based standard but pertains to odor and appearance of drinking water. See § 403.852(12) and (13), Fla. Stat. Petitioners argued that the Phase I study was defective because historical activity on the project site was not adequately addressed. But the Phase I study was only part of the evidence considered during this de novo hearing. Following up on the Phase I study, the 2001 sampling analyzed for 68 volatile organics and 72 semi-volatile organics, which would have picked up solvents, some pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons--the full range of semi-volatile and volatile organics. The sampling in August 2003 occurred because some of the semi-volatile parameters sampled earlier needed to be more precisely measured, and it was a much broader analysis that included 63 semi-volatiles, 73 volatile organic compounds, 23 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, 25 organic phosphate pesticides, 13 chlorinated herbicides, 13 metals, and ammonia and phosphorus. The parameters for which sampling and analyses were done included parameters that were representative of contaminants in landfills that would have now spread to the project site. They also would have detected any contamination due to historical activity on the project site. Yet groundwater testing demonstrated that existing groundwater at the project site meets state water quality standards. Based on the lack of contaminants found in these samples taken from groundwater at the project site 50 years after the landfill began operation, the logical conclusion is that either groundwater does not flow from the landfill toward the project site or that the groundwater moving away from the landfill is not contaminated. Groundwater that may enter the stormwater ponds will not contain contaminants that will exceed surface water quality standards or groundwater quality standards. Taken together, the evidence was adequate to give reasonable assurances that groundwater entering the stormwater ponds will not contain contaminants that exceed surface water quality standards or groundwater quality standards and that water quality violations would not occur from contaminated water groundwater drawn into the proposed stormwater management system, whether from the old landfill or from onsite waste disposal. The greater weight of the evidence was that there are no violations of water quality standards in groundwater beneath the project site and that nothing has happened on the site that would cause violations to occur in the future. Contrary to Petitioners' suggestion, a permit condition requiring continued monitoring for onsite contamination is not warranted. J. Fish and Wildlife Except for the bald eagle nest, all issues regarding fish and wildlife, listed species, and their habitat as they relate to ERP-A.H. 12.2.2 through 12.2.2.4 already have been addressed. When the Ginns were made aware in November 2003 that there was an eagle nest in Wetland 1, they retained the services of Tony Steffer, an eagle expert with over 25 years of experience working specifically with eagles and eagle management issues, including extensive hands-on experience with eagles and the conduct of field studies, aerial surveys, and behavioral observations as well as numerous research projects on the bald eagle. Mr. Steffer visited the Ravenswood site on numerous occasions since the discovery of the nest, made observations, and was integral in the drafting of the Ravenswood BEMP. It is Mr. Steffer’s opinion that the proposed project, with the implementation of the BEMP, will not adversely affect the eagles. This opinion was based on Mr. Steffer's extensive knowledge and experience with eagle behavior and human interactions. In addition, Mr. Steffer considered the physical characteristics of the Ravenswood site and the nest tree, the dense vegetation in Wetland 1 surrounding the nest site, and the existing surrounding land uses, including the existing residential community that lies a distance of about 310 feet from the nest site, the existing roadways and associated traffic, and the school (with attendant playground noise) that is to north of the site. In Mr. Steffer's opinion, the eagles are deriving their security from the buffering effects provided by the surrounding wetland. He observed that the nesting and incubating eagles were not disturbed when he set up his scope at about 300-320 feet from the tree. The BEMP requires that Wetland 1, and the upland islands located within it, be preserved and limits the work associated with the water/sewer line to the non-nesting season. With the BEMP implemented, Mr. Steffer expressed confidence that the Ravenswood eagles would be able to tolerate the proposed activities allowed under the BEMP. The Ravenswood project plans and the BEMP were reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS analyzed information in their files relating to projects which proposed activities within the primary zone of an eagle nest and reported abandoned nests. None of the reported abandoned nests could be attributed to human activities in and around the nest tree. Based on the project plans, the terms of the BEMP, and this analysis, the USFWS concluded that the Ravenswood project "is not likely to adversely affect" the bald eagles at the Ravenswood site. According to the coordination procedures agreed to and employed by the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), the USFWS takes the lead in reviewing bald eagle issues associated with development projects. In accordance with these procedures, for the Ravenswood project, the USFWS coordinated their review and their draft comments with the FFWCC. The FFWCC concurred with the USFWS’s position that the project, with the implementation of the BEMP, will not adversely affect the Ravenswood eagles or their nest. This position by both agencies is consistent with the expert testimony of Mr. Don Palmer, which was based on his 29 years of experience with the USFWS in bald eagle and human interactions. Petitioners and their witnesses raised several valid concerns regarding the continued viability of the Ravenswood eagle nest during and after implementation of the proposed project. One concern expressed was that parts of the Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region (Eagle Management Guidelines) seem inconsistent with the proposed project. For example, the Eagle Management Guidelines state: "The emphasis [of the guidelines] is to avoid or minimize detrimental human-related impacts on bald eagles, particularly during the nesting season." They also state that the primary zone, which in this case is the area within a 750 foot radius of the nest tree, is "the most critical area and must be maintained to promote acceptable conditions for eagles." They recommend no residential development within the primary zone "at any time." (Emphasis in original.) They also recommend no major activities such as land clearing and construction in the secondary zone during the nesting season because "[e]ven intermittent use or activities [of that kind] of short duration during nesting are likely to constitute disturbance." But the eagle experts explained that the Eagle Management Guidelines have not been updated since 1987, and it has been learned since then that eagles can tolerate more disturbance than was thought at that time. Another concern was that the Ravenswood eagles may have chosen the nest site in Wetland 1 not only for its insulation from existing development to the north and east but also for the relatively sparse development to the west. Along those lines, it was not clear from the evidence that the eagles are used to flying over developed land to forage on the San Sebastian River and its estuaries to the east, as the eagle experts seemed to believe. Mr. Mills testified that eagles have been seen foraging around stocked fish ponds to the west, which also could be the source of catfish bones found beneath the Ravenswood nest. But it is believed that the confident testimony of the eagle experts must be accepted and credited notwithstanding Petitioners' unspecific concerns along these lines. Finally, Petitioners expressed concern about the effectiveness of the monitoring during the nesting required under the BEMP. Some of Petitioners' witnesses related less-than-perfect experiences with eagle monitoring, including malfeasance (monitors sleeping instead of monitoring), unresponsive developers (ignoring monitors' requests to stop work because of signs of eagle disturbance, or delaying work stoppage), and indications that some eagle monitors may lack independence from the hiring developer (giving rise, in a worst case, to the question whether an illegal conspiracy exists between them to ignore signs of disturbance when no independent observer is around). Notwithstanding these concerns, Petitioners' witnesses conceded that eagle monitoring can be and is sometimes effective. If Mr. Steffer is retained as the eagle monitor for this project, or to recruit and train eagle monitors to work under his supervision, there is no reason to think that eagle monitoring in this case will not be conducted in good faith and effectively. Even if the Ginns do not retain Mr. Steffer for those purposes, the evidence did not suggest a valid reason to assume that the Ginns' proposed eagle monitoring will not be conducted in good faith and effectively. K. Other 40C-4.301 Criteria – 40C-4.301(1)(g)-(k) 40C-4.301.301(1)(g) - No minimum surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows have been established pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rules Chapter 40C-8 in the area of the project. 40C-4.301.301(1)(h) - There are no works of the District in the area of the project. 40C-4.301.301(1)(i) - The proposed wet detention system is typical and is based on accepted engineering practices. Wet detention systems are one of the most easily maintained stormwater management systems and require very little maintenance, just periodically checking the outfall structure for clogging. 40C-4.301.301(1)(j) - The Ginns own the property where the project is located free from mortgages and liens. As previously indicated, they will establish an operation and maintenance entity. The cost of mitigation is less than $25,000 so that financial responsibility for mitigation was not required to be established. (Costs associated with the proposed BEMP are not included as part of the Ginns' mitigation proposal.) 40C-4.301.301(1)(k) - The project is not located in a basin subject to special criteria. Public Interest Test in 40C-4.302 The seven-factor public interest test is a balancing test. The test applies to the parts of the project that are in, on, or over wetlands, and those parts must not be contrary to the public interest unless they are located in, on, or over an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) or significantly degrade an OFW, in which case the project must be clearly in the public interest. No part of the project is located within an OFW. Balancing the public interest test factors, the project will not be contrary to the public interest. 40C-4.302(1)(a)1. - The project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others because the surface water management system is designed in accordance with District criteria, the post-development peak rate of discharge is less than the pre-development peak rate of discharge, and the project will not cause flooding to offsite properties. 40C-4.302(1)(a)2. - Mitigation will offset any adverse impacts of the project to the conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats, and the BEMP is designed to prevent adverse effects on the Ravenswood eagles. Although active gopher tortoise burrows were observed on the site, the impacts to these burrows are addressed by the FFWCC’s incidental take permit. The mitigation that is required as part of that permit will adequately offset the impacts to this species. 40C-4.302(1)(a)3. - The project will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful shoaling. The project will not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion. The project's design includes erosion and sediment control measures. The project's design minimizes flow velocities by including flat slopes for pipes. The stormwater will be discharged through an upsized pipe, which will reduce the velocity of the water. The stormwater will discharge into a spreader swale (also called a velocity attenuation pond), which will further reduce the velocity and will prevent erosion in Wetland 1. The other findings of fact relevant to this criterion are in the section entitled "Water Quantity." See Findings 61-67, supra. 40C-4.302(1)(a)4. – Development of the project will not adversely affect the legal recreational use of the project site. (Illegal use by trespassers should not be considered under this criterion.) There also will not be any adverse impact on recreational use in the vicinity of the project site. Wetlands 1 and 5 may provide benefit to marine productivity by supplying detritus to the marine habitat, and these wetlands will remain. 40C-4.302(1)(a)5. - The project will be of a permanent nature except for the temporary impacts to Wetland 1. Mitigation will offset the temporary adverse impacts. 40C-4.302(1)(a)6. - The District found no archeological or historical resources on the site, and the District received information from the Division of Historical Resources indicating there would be no adverse impacts from this project to significant historical or archeological resources. 40C-4.302(1)(a)7. - Considering the mitigation proposal, and the proposed BEMP, there will be no adverse effects on the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project. The proposed project is no worse than neutral measured against any one of these criteria, individually. For that reason, it must be determined that, on balance, consideration these factors indicates that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Other 40C-4.302 Criteria The proposed mitigation is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts so the project would not cause an unacceptable cumulative impact. The project is not located in or near Class II waters. The project does not contain seawalls and is not located in an estuary or lagoon. The District reviewed a dredge and fill violation that occurred on the project site and was handled by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1989. The Ginns owned the property with others in 1989. Although they did not conduct the activity that caused the violation, they took responsibility for resolving the matter in a timely manner through entry of a Consent Order. The evidence was that they complied with the terms of the Consent Order. Applicants' Exhibit 30K was a letter from DER dated February 13, 1991, verifying compliance based on a site inspection. Inexplicably, the file reference number did not match the number on the Consent Order. But Mr. Ginn testified that he has heard nothing since concerning the matter either from DER, or its successor agency (the Department of Environmental Protection), or from the District. The evidence was that the Ginns have not violated any rules described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C- 4.302(2). There also was no evidence of any other DER or DEP violations after 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order issuing to Jay and Linda Ginn ERP number 40-109-81153-1, subject to the conditions set forth in District Exhibits 1, 2, and 10. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2004.
