The Issue Whether Respondent Richardson’s application for a wetlands resource permit to construct a private road and bridge through wetlands should be denied for failing to provide mitigation to offset the impacts to existing wetlands. Whether Respondent Richardson had provided the Department with reasonable assurance that he or she owns or has sufficient authorization to use certain land in mitigation to offset the wetland impacts.
Findings Of Fact In January of 1990, John Richardson applied to the Department for a wetland resource (dredge and fill) permit under Section 403.918, Florida Statutes to construct a private road and bridge through wetlands. The proposed project would impact 0.032 acres of wetland. The proposed project is not located in an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The proposed project would adversely affect the following: the conservation of fish and wildlife; the fishing, recreational values, and marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed project; and the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the wetlands impacted by the project. The proposed project would be permanent in nature. The proposed project would not meet the criteria of Section 403.918(2)(a) Florida Statutes, without mitigation adequate to offset the impacts to wetlands. To provide adequate mitigation for the proposed project, Respondent John Richardson proposed to create and preserve 0.029 acres of new wetlands and preserve 4.35 acres of existing wetlands. The preservation would consist of granting to the Department a perpetual conservation easement over the mitigation wetlands. Respondent John Richardson represented to the Department that he was the record owner or had permission to use the land that he offered for mitigation. The Department reasonably relied on that representation. The mitigation proposed by Respondent John Richardson would be adequate to offset the impacts to wetlands resulting from the proposed project. On March 4, 1992, the Department issued to John Richardson a wetlands resource permit for the proposed project. The Department was not aware, before it issued this permit, that John Richardson might not own or have permission to use the mitigation land. The Department was substantially justified in issuing the permit to John Richardson on March 4, 1992. Specific conditions 28-31 of that permit required Respondent John Richardson to grant the Department a conservation easement over the mitigation land within thirty days after issuance of the permit. Respondent John Richardson failed to grant the Department the required conservation easement, and failed to publish notice of the Department’s action. On July 22, 1996, Petitioners filed a timely petition with the Department challenging the Department’s issuance of the March 4, 1992, permit to Respondent John Richardson. On September 11, 1996, Janet Richardson filed an application with the Department for transfer of the March 4, 1992, permit to her following the dissolution of marriage with John Richardson. By letter dated October 11, 1996, the Department requested Janet Richardson to provide additional documentation to show that she either owns the mitigation land or has permission to use that land. Janet Richardson was required to provide a legal survey drawing depicting the mitigation land, property records showing ownership of that land, and a notarized statement from the land owner authorizing her to use that land. The Department specifically advised Janet Richardson that it could not approve the proposed project if she failed to submit this requested documentation to the Department prior to the final hearing. Janet Richardson failed to provide the requested documentation by the date of the final hearing in this matter, or subsequently. As of November 6, 1996, no work had begun on the proposed project. At the hearing, the Department adequately explained its change in position from deciding to issue the permit (on March 4, 1992) and proposing denial of the permit (on November 6, 1996). The Department relies on an applicant’s representations regarding ownership of or right to use land unless a problem is brought to the Department’s attention. In this case, the Department was not aware that there was a problem with the applicant’s right to use the mitigation land until the petition was filed with the Department on July 22, 1996. Janet Richardson failed to provide proof that she either owns or is authorized to use the land to mitigate the impacts to wetlands from the proposed project. Without such proof, Janet Richardson failed to prove that she could mitigate those same impacts from the proposed project.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying Respondent Richardson’s request for a wetlands resource permit for the proposed project.ONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Stauffer Post Office Box 97 Aripeka, Florida 34679-097 Cy Plata Post Office Box 64 Aripeka, Florida 34679 Steven McCallum Post Office Box 484 Aripeka, Florida 34679 Leslie Neumann Post Office Box 738 Aripeka, Florida 34679 John Richardson 700 West Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34607 Janet Richardson 1603 Osowaw Boulevard Springhill, Florida 34607 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr., Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virgina B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent Charles Dolby violated certain rules of the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) related to activities in wetlands in the Department’s Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (NOV); whether Respondent is liable for the administrative fines and investigative costs assessed by the Department; whether mitigation of the administrative fines is appropriate; and whether Respondent should be required to take the corrective action described in the NOV.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state agency charged with the power and duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 62, that regulate activities in wetlands. Respondent is the owner of the real property (Parcel ID #N29A012) located at Tract 12, County Road 652A, Bushnell, Sumter County, Florida (“the property”). Mr. Dolby has owned the property since June 9, 2005. In the period from February 2006 to June 2006, Respondent conducted activities on the property which he referred to as “clearing.” He did not have a permit from the Department to conduct the activities. Count I of the NOV charges Respondent with violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-343.050(1), for dredging in wetlands without an environmental resource permit from the Department. Count II of the NOV charges Respondent with violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-343.050(1) for filling in wetlands without an environmental resource permit from the Department. The Department demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that wetlands exist on Respondent’s property and that .33 acres of the wetlands were dredged and .22 acres of the wetlands were filled. Respondent did not present competent evidence to rebut the Department’s evidence of the existence of wetlands on his property. Instead, Respondent presented evidence about unusually heavy rainfall in 2005 and about a “plugged” culvert under the road near his property, presumably to prove that the wet conditions on his property were caused by unusual flooding events and were temporary. The conditions that created a particular wetland are usually not relevant to the determination of whether a permit is required for dredging and filling activities in the wetland. Moreover, the more persuasive evidence presented in this case shows that the wetlands on Respondent’s property are part of a larger wetland system that has existed for many years. For example, the hydric soils in the wetlands on Respondent’s property are the result of long-term natural processes, not an ephemeral condition. Respondent did not claim or present evidence which showed that his activities on the property qualified for an exemption from the requirement to obtain a permit for activities in wetlands. Respondent testified that he was told by an employee of Sumter County that he did not need a permit to clear his property. Respondent did not make clear whether the County employee said that the County did not require a permit for clearing, or whether the County employee said the Department did not require a permit for clearing. It was probably the former. Furthermore, Respondent did not say that he told the County employee that he was going to be clearing in wetlands. The evidence presented by Respondent is insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent’s ignorance of the Department’s permitting rules was reasonable or that the circumstances justify a reduction of the penalty. Count III of the NOV charges Respondent with liability for the Department’s investigative costs. The Department’s employee, Brian Brown, testified that he spent at least 40 hours on investigation and enforcement tasks, during which time he was paid approximately $22.50 per hour. Therefore, the $500 sought by the Department in Count III of the NOV is less than the actual costs incurred by the Department.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this consolidated proceeding are (1) whether the Petitioners have demonstrated standing under section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (2018), and (2) whether the Okeechobee Business District Comprehensive Plan Amendment (OBD Amendment) adopted on August 13, 2018, by the Respondent by Ordinance No. 4783-18 (Ordinance) is "in compliance" under section 163.3184(1)(b).
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Lakeview is a Delaware limited liability company, registered with the State of Florida. Lakeview owns Esperanté, a 20-story office tower at 222 Lakeview Avenue within the boundaries of the OBD. Lakeview submitted oral and written objections to the City during the process leading to adoption of the OBD Amendment. Lakeview's concerns included impact to views of the Intracoastal Waterway by potential development of a 25-story office tower to the east of Esperanté at the location referred to as the "church site," as well as increased traffic congestion on Lakeview Avenue. Lakeview is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The Town is a Florida municipal corporation and a home rule charter municipality. The Town owns property within the City, including its public works facility in close proximity to the OBD. The Town submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the City during the adoption process for the OBD Amendment. The Town is an adjoining local government to the City. The Town was concerned that the OBD Amendment would produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure by increasing the cost of traffic signalization on Okeechobee Boulevard and Lakeview Avenue in the OBD. The Town is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and a home rule charter county. The County owns property within the jurisdiction of the City, including its convention center and parking garage, which are located on Okeechobee Boulevard in close proximity to the OBD. The County was concerned that the OBD Amendment would produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure in the form of increased cost for traffic signalization and other active traffic management measures on Okeechobee Boulevard and on increased cost of providing bus services. The County submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the City during the adoption process for the OBD Amendment. The County is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The City is a Florida municipal corporation located in the County and is responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and plan amendments. The City adopted the OBD Amendment under the state expedited review process in section 163.3184(3). The City also owns a parcel within the OBD referred to throughout this proceeding as the "tent site." Background The OBD includes all the properties located between Okeechobee Boulevard, Lakeview Avenue, Rosemary Avenue, and Flagler Drive in the City's downtown. It is a five-block area with the church site as its easternmost parcel. The OBD is a new district within the area defined in the Downtown Master Plan (DMP) Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Comp Plan). The DMP Element is an optional element of the City Comp Plan that was adopted in 1995. The DMP's vision includes promoting a place of sustainable and efficient transportation systems that promote greater connectivity for pedestrians, cyclist, and transit riders. The OBD Amendment is a small component of the City's large and comprehensive strategy to encourage mode shift within the DMP area. The DMP currently sets forth 13 districts that are described in Policy 1.1.1 and whose boundaries are depicted on the Downtown District Map in the City Comp Plan. DMP Policy 3.1.1 directs the City to maintain the DMP Zoning Atlas showing the districts from DMP Policy 1.1.1, the planning areas and the subdistricts. The OBD is also located within the Downtown Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) established in Objective 2.3.5 of the Transportation Element in the City Comp Plan. The Downtown TCEA is also adopted in the County's Comprehensive Plan (County Comp Plan), and the TCEA boundaries are coterminous with the DMP area. The City entered into an agreement with the County and FDOT in 1998 regarding the TCEA. Adoption of the TCEA meant that the City, the County, and FDOT acknowledged that in order for desired development and redevelopment to occur in the City's downtown area, it would be difficult for certain roadways to continue to meet the adopted level of service standards. Thus, the City was exempted from meeting transportation concurrency requirements and traffic performance standards in the TCEA. A Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling System (FSUTMS) traffic analysis of the area that was done prior to adoption of the TCEA ultimately established the required residential and nonresidential development ratios described in Transportation Element Policy 2.3.5(h). The development ratios required the City to have both residential and nonresidential space in the downtown area. The City achieved the projection for residential units set forth in Transportation Element Policy 2.3.5(g), but has approximately five million square feet more of nonresidential space available to reach the stated projection for nonresidential space. The OBD Amendment On April 30, 2018, Gabe Klein, a consultant for the City, presented the Downtown Mobility Plan to the mayor and city commission. The workshop was open to the public and televised on the City's website. At this workshop, the Mayor initiated the process for pursuing the OBD Amendment. The City then timely sent its executive summary of the proposed OBD Amendment to the Interlocal Plan Amendment Review Committee (IPARC) Clearinghouse on May 3, 2018. On May 7, 2018, the Clearinghouse provided notice (IPARC Notice) of the OBD Amendment to the Town and the County under the terms of the Interlocal Agreement that established the IPARC. On May 21, 2018, by Resolution No. 134-18, the City Commission adopted the Downtown Mobility Plan, along with the Okeechobee Corridor Study, Downtown Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study, and the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan. In addition to the IPARC Notice, the City provided notice to both the County and Lakeview by mail and published required notices in the newspaper. Counsel for Lakeview presented oral comments regarding the OBD Amendment at the City's Planning Board meeting on May 15, 2018; at the Downtown Action Committee (DAC) meeting on June 13, 2018; at the transmittal hearing on June 18, 2018; and at the adoption hearing on August 13, 2018. County representatives made oral comments at the transmittal hearing on June 18, 2018, and the adoption hearing on August 13, 2018. A Town representative made oral comments at the adoption hearing on August 13, 2018. The Ordinance reflected the City's continuing policy of seeking to attract high-intensity office uses to consolidate the area as an economic center of downtown, with innovative high-rise buildings and an active pedestrian environment. The Ordinance further allowed for the creation of incentives to permit building heights to increase from five stories to 25 stories in the OBD 5 subdistrict without increasing the permitted floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.75. The Ordinance amended the City Comp Plan's DMP Element to identify the location, development capacity, and height allowed within the OBD. DMP Policy 1.1.1 was amended to create the OBD. DMP Policy 3.1.3 was amended to show maximum development capacity, subdistrict boundaries and incentive areas for the OBD. The text added to DMP Policy 1.1.1 stated: N. Okeechobee Business District: The Okeechobee corridor is the traditional business district of downtown, around which office buildings have historically located. The focus of the Okeechobee business district should be towards attracting high intensity office uses to consolidate the area as an economic center of downtown, with innovative high-rise buildings and an active pedestrian environment. The district shall function as a connection between the north and south portions of the City, with enhanced pedestrian crossings and a large percentage of public open spaces. Intensity and Density The OBD Amendment did not increase development intensity or density. In fact, the OBD Amendment reduced the allowable development within the Okeechobee Corridor. The evidence established that the FAR of 2.75 on the church site remained the same with the OBD Amendment. Ms. Aponte is in charge of overseeing the development and implementation of the DMP. She testified that prior to adoption of the OBD Amendment, the FAR on the church site was 2.75 and that the church site property could have been developed to accommodate approximately 300,000 square feet of usable office space and provide parking on site. With the same FAR of 2.75 after adoption of the OBD Amendment, the church site's development capacity remained the same. Ms. Aponte also concluded that from a planning perspective, since the development capacity at the church site remained the same before and after the OBD Amendment, and the use did not change, there would not be additional traffic impacts. Mr. Greene explained that the OBD Amendment would actually reduce the development capacity on the tent site and that all other blocks in the OBD would retain the same development capacity as before the OBD Amendment. Since there was a reduction in the actual development capacity within the OBD, there was not an increase in intensity. Mr. Greene and/or his staff explained the reduction in development capacity in the OBD at all four public hearings and in many telephone conversations with staff from the County and the Town. The tent site is located within the City Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI) that holds certain development rights. Sites located within the DRI may use the DRI's development rights on a "first come, first serve" basis until they are exhausted. Reducing capacity on the tent site would allow another site within the DRI to use those development rights. This would shift development away from the Okeechobee Corridor in the OBD to another site within the DRI. The City proved that the OBD Amendment did not increase development intensity or density. The City credibly established that the OBD Amendment reduced the allowable development within the OBD. Petitioners' Objections The Petitioners jointly presented their cases during the hearing. They argued that the OBD Amendment was not "in compliance" because it created internal inconsistencies within the City Comp Plan, it was not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, it was not properly coordinated with the neighboring local governments, it was not coordinated with the comprehensive plans of the Town and the County, and it was a de facto future land use plan amendment. Each argument is generally addressed below. However, the major underlying premise of the Petitioners' challenge was that the OBD Amendment would allow more intense development and that the City had not evaluated potential impacts to traffic and parking. As found above, the City proved that the OBD Amendment did not increase development intensity or density. Thus, the City did not need to evaluate the traffic impacts of the OBD. In addition, the City was exempted from meeting transportation concurrency requirements and traffic performance standards in the TCEA. Internal Consistency The Town and County identified elements in the City Comp Plan in order to argue internal inconsistency. Those were the Coastal Management Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and Transportation Element. The Town and County also claimed the OBD Amendment was inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Lakeview claimed the OBD Amendment was inconsistent with the entire City Comp Plan generally, and specifically inconsistent with the vision of the DMP Element, DMP Policies 3.1.3, 1.1.1.H, and 1.1.1.M; Future Land Use Policy 1.1.7; Transportation Element Policy 2.3.1(a), Objective 2.3.4, Policies 2.3.5(a) and 2.3.5(h); and Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objectives 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4, Policies 1.3.1, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, and 1.5.3. The Petitioners argued that "high-rise Class A" buildings must be built in the Quadrille Business District (QBD) described in DMP Policy 1.1.1.H. However, the DMP Element does not limit tall buildings to the QBD. For example, a maximum height of 30 stories is allowed in the Quadrille Garden District, 25 stories in the QBD, and 15 stories in the Transit Oriented District and Flagler Waterfront District. During the hearing, Mr. Greene narrated drone footage that showed high-rise buildings are located throughout the downtown area, including in and near the OBD in the Okeechobee Corridor. Two residential towers that are 32 stories in height are also located along the waterfront in the Flagler Waterfront District. The evidence supported the description in the OBD that "[t]he Okeechobee corridor is the traditional business district of downtown, around which office buildings have historically located." The evidence also established that the tallest buildings in the downtown are not located in the QBD. The City Comp Plan does not prohibit high-rise buildings in districts other than the QBD. Lakeview's witness, Ms. Ward, opined that creation of the OBD conflicted with the intention of the Flagler Waterfront District to preserve waterfront views and its function as a transition from more intense development in the urban core of downtown. The evidence showed that these intentions can be realized with creation of the OBD. The OBD's implementing regulations adopted at the same time as the OBD Amendment as changes to the DMP Urban Regulations required that any development be set back 400 feet from the Intracoastal Waterway and that open space be increased. This would maintain an open space promenade along Flagler Drive. The County argued that the OBD Amendment conflicted with Policy 1.2-m of its Transportation Element, which provides in part: "Based on the results of the traffic monitoring report, the City will pursue strategies including, but not limited to . . . develop a centrally-managed system of strategically located parking facilities." The same language is found in the Transportation Element of the City Comp Plan in Policy 2.3.5(a). Contrary to the County's argument, the OBD Amendment in no way prohibited or directed the location of centrally-managed parking garages. The OBD Amendment complemented the many strategies referenced in Policy 1.2-m and Policy 2.3.5(a) by promoting public transit services, encouraging transportation mode options, and implementing employer-based Transportation Demand Management (TDM) activities. The evidence established that parking requirements for any developments within the DMP, including the new OBD, complied with the provisions of DMP Element Objective 4.3 and the implementing DMP Urban Regulations. DMP Objective 4.3 states that "[t]he City shall develop strategies to manage the downtown parking supply and demand." Lakeview argued that Exhibit 3 to the Ordinance showed two Okeechobee Business subdistricts but did not list the other subdistricts that were created under the OBD, specifically OBD-12CP. Mr. Hansen explained that OBD-12CP is contained within the City Place DRI, which was amended by the adoption of a separate Ordinance No. 4782-18 and is not subject to review in a comprehensive plan challenge. At the hearing, the County and Town withdrew their claim relating to conflict with the Coastal Management Element. In an abundance of caution, the City presented evidence and established that the OBD is not in a coastal high hazard area. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (Treasure Coast) is the regional planning council that reviewed the City's OBD Amendment. Treasure Coast's review and comments were limited to any adverse effects on regional resources or facilities identified in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan, and any extra- jurisdictional impacts that would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of any affected local government within the region. Based on the City's staff report for the OBD Amendment, Treasure Coast found that the maximum development potential of property, as expressed by FAR, did not increase as a result of the creation of the OBD. Treasure Coast found no adverse effects on regional resources or facilities and no extra-jurisdictional impacts resulting from creation of the OBD. The Petitioners did not present any evidence that would establish the OBD Amendment was not consistent with the requirements of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the OBD Amendment conflicted with the policies, goals, and objectives of the City Comp Plan or the County Comp Plan. Data and Analysis The City Commission adopted the Downtown Mobility Plan (Mobility Plan), along with the Okeechobee Corridor Study, Downtown Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study and the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan. The various studies that make up the Mobility Plan included data relating to mode shift, walkability, mobility, circulation on Okeechobee Boulevard, economic growth in the downtown, and TDM initiatives. The Mobility Plan created a vision of desired outcomes, goals, a mode hierarchy, a mode-shift goal, and a series of proposed projects and strategies to improve mobility, not only along the Okeechobee Corridor, but also the entire downtown. The plan estimated needs in 2040 based on jobs and population rates and provided specific proposed projects that could be implemented to manage future growth in the entire downtown. The study specifically included streets within the OBD and was, therefore, relevant data and analysis that supported the OBD Amendment. The Okeechobee Corridor Study looked at the needs, capacity, and characteristics along Okeechobee Boulevard, all of which are related to the OBD. The Downtown Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study provided an audit of the parking in the downtown area. The study supported adoption of the OBD Amendment since the OBD is an area included within the overall parking demand study. The Citywide Bicycle Master Plan included an analysis of bike facilities and bike lanes along and accessing the OBD. It discussed the existing transit network in the Okeechobee corridor, obstacles, and the need for modification to some of the street systems to achieve the Bicycle Master Plan's long-term goals of producing a connected series of trails. The City also relied upon traffic count data for Okeechobee Boulevard produced by the County. In addition to the County's traffic count data, the City relied on an FDOT analysis dated June 7, 2018, which showed existing conditions before and after the Brightline train service began and which revealed that there were no intersections on the relevant portions of Okeechobee Boulevard that were failing. The City Commission also reviewed data concerning trolley ridership and skybike ridership. There were numerous other data and analyses that existed at the time of adoption of the OBD Amendment that supported the City's action in adopting the amendment including: The Economic Impact Analysis of the OBD by Fishkind & Associates, which found that the City's Class-A office market is underserved, that the City's market has a vacancy rate far below average for business districts in Florida or the United States, that a new Class-A office building in the OBD is likely to have a beneficial impact on the City's office market, that the OBD could create 1,000 new high-wage jobs and create additional demand for residential housing, that a new Class-A office building would likely generate $1 million in tax revenue for the City, and that approval of the OBD would not have a detrimental impact on surrounding Class-A offices. The West Palm Beach Downtown Walkability Analysis specifically stated that certain streets, most notably the state- owned Okeechobee Boulevard and Quadrille Avenue, are considered "downright hazardous" to pedestrians. Dr. Depew explained that the study was relevant to the OBD Amendment because it explained how the City could get people out of their personal automobiles and move them into an urban environment in different modes of transportation, which is consistent with the TCEA's aim to have more people living and working downtown. The City has adopted the walkability study in the Transportation Element Policy 2.4.4(a) of the City Comp Plan. The FDOT District 4 Road Safety Audit Report was intended to look at the performance of existing or future road intersections, including the intersection of Okeechobee Boulevard and Florida Avenue and Rosemary Avenue, to determine how the area itself could be made safer for pedestrians, provide alternative means of transportation, and reduce conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles in the area. The Transit Choices Report + Sketch Alternatives contained data related to population and employment trends in the downtown area and alternatives for transit in the downtown area. It provided options, alternatives, and recommendations that included a portion of the OBD area. The report contained a map related to the mobility plan and shifting transit services to a new downtown site as a potential for future consideration within the OBD. It also referenced the Okeechobee Boulevard Corridor Study. The West Palm Beach Economic Development Study by Avalanche evaluated economic and demographic data, assessed the City's business climate, analyzed visitor trends, analyzed real estate trends, and reviewed economic development assets and programs in the City. With regard to infrastructure and real estate, the study found that Class A office space was in high demand, that office vacancy rates have been falling since 2011, and that the potential OBD would allow the City to increase in-demand Class A office product in a prime downtown location. The appraiser report by Aucamp, Dellenback and Whitney concluded that the proposed OBD would not have an adverse effect on property values for the downtown-at-large, no adverse effect on property values for nearby residential buildings, and no adverse effect on property values for nearby office buildings. The Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan included growth forecasts regarding population and employment (population growth at 35 percent and employment growth at 56 percent by 2040), which Dr. Depew looked at to confirm that the materials in other reports he reviewed were accurate. The City did not perform a site-specific traffic impact study because it was exempt under the TCEA, and there was a reduction of development intensity within the Okeechobee Corridor. Dr. Depew opined that the proposed OBD Amendment did not require a traffic impact study. The Petitioners argued that the various surveys, studies, and reports did not expressly refer to the OBD and the OBD Amendment. However, section 163.3177(1)(f) does not require creation of a plan amendment prior to conducting studies and gathering data to support it. In fact, a plan amendment is usually the reaction to surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data. The data and analyses relied on by the City were prepared by recognized professionals using professionally accepted methodologies and sources. The City's reaction to the data and analyses was appropriate. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the OBD Amendment was not supported by relevant data and analysis or that the City did not react appropriately to the data and analysis. Intergovernmental Coordination The County, Town, and City entered into the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review Interlocal Agreement, dated October 1, 1993 (Interlocal Agreement), to comply with the intergovernmental coordination requirements of chapter 163. The Interlocal Agreement established a countywide coordinated review process designed to provide cooperation between affected local governments and opportunities to resolve potential disputes within the plan amendment process with the least amount of infringement upon existing processes. The Interlocal Agreement established the IPARC Clearinghouse. Local governments are obligated to provide the Clearinghouse with an executive summary and hearing information. The City timely sent its executive summary to the Clearinghouse, and the Clearinghouse provided notice of the OBD Amendment to the Town and the County. The Interlocal Agreement provided that a written notice of intent to object may be filed by a participating local government and must be filed no later than 15 days before the transmittal hearing. Once filed, a meeting is required between the jurisdictions, a fact-finding panel is established, an opinion letter is issued, and conflict resolution is available as provided under Article X. The Town signed the Interlocal Agreement. It also adopted Policy 1.1.3 in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) of its Comprehensive Plan requiring it to cooperate with all other local governments in a voluntary dispute resolution process for the purpose of facilitating intergovernmental coordination. The County also signed the Interlocal Agreement. In the County's ICE, it too recognized the intergovernmental review process established under the Interlocal Agreement. The County and Town did not present any evidence that they filed notices of intent to object to the OBD Amendment 15 days prior to the transmittal hearing as required by the Interlocal Agreement. In addition to the IPARC Notice, the City provided notice to both the County and Lakeview by mail and published required notices in the newspaper. Mr. Greene and Ms. Aponte spoke with John Lingren from the Town about the OBD Amendment. During that conversation, the purpose of the amendment was clarified, development capacity was discussed, and it was explained that the amendment did not increase development capacity on the corridors and did not change the uses. Ms. Aponte and Mr. Hansen also spoke with Mr. Mohyuddin, a principal planner from the County, and clarified that the City was not modifying development capacity and that there was no effect on traffic in the corridor. Mr. Hansen also spoke to Jorge Perez, a senior urban designer with the County, regarding the plan amendments. The FDOT sent a findings letter to the City after reviewing the OBD Amendment. Following receipt of the letter, Mr. Greene communicated with Larry Hymowitz, the FDOT transportation planner who prepared the letter. After reviewing information provided by Mr. Greene, Mr. Hymowitz testified that he no longer believed that there were adverse impacts to transportation facilities and no longer had concerns about the data and analysis used to support the OBD Amendment. Mr. Hymowitz stated that he considered this type of communication to be intergovernmental coordination. The City also received letters from the Petitioners and heard public comment made by the Petitioners' representatives at the public hearings before making its final decision to adopt the OBD Amendment. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the City did not comply with the intergovernmental coordination requirements of the Comp Plans of the County, Town, or City, or of chapter 163. De Facto Future Land Use Plan Amendment The Petitioners argued that the OBD Amendment conflicts with the Future Land Use (FLU) Element and is a de facto future land use plan amendment. On its face, the Ordinance amended the City's DMP Element, not the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The only FLU designation for the entire DMP area is the Urban Central Business District. The OBD Amendment did not change the FLUM since the designation remains Urban Central Business District. DMP Element Policy 3.1.3 stated that the City would establish zoning designations, and specifically indicated that Table DMP-1 identified the maximum FAR and maximum height allowed within each zoning subdistrict by right and with incentives. The City's illustrative zoning maps included in the DMP Element were reviewed in the past by the state land planning agency and were accepted as part of the DMP Element, not as a part of the FLU Element or FLUM. The Petitioners' argument is an attempt to challenge the status quo by claiming that the OBD Amendment is part of a change to or in conflict with the FLU Element when no change to the FLUM has occurred. The City's interpretation of its Comp Plan is reasonable. Ultimate Findings The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is not in compliance. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected. The City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance is fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order finding the OBD Amendment adopted by the City by Ordinance No. 4783-18 "in compliance," as defined by section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2018). DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of December, 2019, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of December, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Nathan E. Nason, Esquire Nason, Yeager, Gerson, White & Lioce, P.A. 3001 PGA Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 (eServed) John Kenneth Rice, Esquire Nason, Yeager, Gerson, White & Lioce, P.A. 750 Park of Commerce Boulevard Boca Raton, Florida 33487 (eServed) Terrell K. Arline, Esquire Terrell K. Arline, Attorney at Law, Company 1819 Tamiami Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Kimberly L. Rothenburg, Esquire K. Denise Haire, Esquire City of West Palm Beach 401 Clematis Street, 5th Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Peter Penrod, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Cissy Proctor, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Stephanie Webster, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact The Intervenors filed an Application for Dredge and Fill Permit with the Department of Environmental Regulation. The Department entered a notice of its intent to issue a permit. Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing. The Department forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, where it was given Case No. 82-3155. A Recommended Order which includes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law has been entered in Case No. 82-3155. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set out in the Recommended Order are hereby incorporated into this Final Order and constitute a part of this Final Order. The Petitioner is an association of home owners within a residential development known as "Caloosa." Intervenors are seeking to develop an industrial park on land adjacent to the Caloosa development. Surface and ground waters from the proposed industrial park would drain toward Caloosa. Prior to the Department's entry of the notice of intent to issue a permit to Intervenors, the Department's personnel evaluated the application in free-form proceedings. An environmental specialist who works with the Department as a permit processor proposed to deny the application on account of the fact that Intervenors proposed to fill approximately 70 acres of wetlands, 24 of which were within the Department's permitting authority under Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code. The administrator of the Department's Dredge and Fill Permitting Section came to the conclusion that denial of the application could not be justified. He felt that the wetlands to be filled served only marginally to preserve water quality in the area. The Intervenors had proposed to artificially create wetland areas in order to compensate for the loss of filled wetland areas. The program administrator suggested to the permit processor that they negotiate to get the Intervenors to create additional artificial wetlands in order to mitigate against any possible adverse effect from the loss of natural wetland areas. These negotiations occurred, and the Intervenors agreed to increase artificially created wetland areas. The Department of Environmental Regulation does not have a rule which provides that its personnel can engage in negotiations respecting a permit application. Negotiations are, however, an inherent part of a permitting process. The Department does not have any written or unwritten policy whereby it accepts such mitigating factors as artificially created wetlands as justifying the filling of natural wetlands. It does not appear that the Department has any rule or nonrule policy concerning mitigation or trade-offs, and it does not appear that the Department has ever had such a rule or policy. The Department does not have a policy of accepting concessions, trade-offs, or mitigating factors so as to allow an applicant to violate the Department's water quality standards. Since there has been a permitting process, such factors as artificially created wetlands have been considered by the Department in determining whether an application meets the Department's criteria for issuance of a permit. The Department's policy is to consider whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the short-term and long-term effects of proposed activities will not result in violations of water quality standards, as required under Rule 17- 4.28(3), Florida Administrative Code. If an applicant has proposed to construct artificial wetlands, the Department would logically consider it in making determinations about granting the permit. There is no evidence in the record of this proceeding from which it could be concluded that the Department has any unpromulgated "mitigation" policy which has the effect of a rule.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the amendments to the Collier County Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 99-82 (the "Interim Amendments") are "in compliance" as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Petitioners each own property and operate businesses in Collier County. Each Petitioner has members who reside in Collier County. Each Petitioner submitted oral comments to the County regarding the Interim Amendments during the period between transmittal and adoption. The Petitioners timely filed their Petition in this proceeding. The Petitioners are "affected persons" pursuant to Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes, and have standing to bring this proceeding. The County is the local government whose land use amendment is at issue in this proceeding. The Department is the state land planning agency with the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. James A. Brown, as Trustee of the East Naples Land Company, owns property in the County and submitted comments to the County regarding the Interim Amendments during the adoption process. Barron Collier Partnership owns property and operates a business in the County and submitted comments to the County regarding the Interim Amendments during the adoption process. Collier Enterprises, Ltd. owns property and operates a business in the County and submitted comments to the County regarding the Interim Amendments during the adoption process. Consolidated Citrus Limited Partnership owns property and operates a business in the County and submitted comments to the County regarding the Interim Amendments during the adoption process. Pacific Tomato Growers owns property and operates a business in the County and submitted comments to the County regarding the Interim Amendments during the adoption process. Alico, Inc. owns property and operates a business in the County and submitted comments to the County regarding the Interim Amendments during the adoption process. Jack Price owns property, resides and operates a business in the County, and submitted comments to the County regarding the Interim Amendments during the adoption process. Russell Priddy owns property, resides and operates a business in the County, and submitted comments to the County regarding the Interim Amendments during the adoption process. Background On April 6, 1996, the County adopted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("EAR") for its Plan. Each local government is required to adopt an EAR once every seven years, assessing its progress in implementing its comprehensive plan. Section 163.3191(1), Florida Statutes. The local government must then amend its comprehensive plan to reflect the data and analysis and recommendations in the EAR. Section 163.3191(10), Florida Statutes. The County adopted its EAR-based amendments on November 14, 1997. The Department reviewed these EAR-based amendments, found that they did not comply with state law, and on December 24, 1997, published a Notice of Intent to find the amendments not "in compliance." The Department then instituted administrative proceedings against the County pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes. The Florida Wildlife Federation and the Collier County Audubon Society intervened in support of the Department's original not "in compliance" determination. A formal administrative hearing was held over a five- day period in May 1998. On March 19, 1999, a recommended order was entered recommending that all of the challenged EAR-based amendments be determined not "in compliance." The recommended order was forwarded to the Administration Commission for final agency action pursuant to Section 163.3184(10)(b) and (11), Florida Statutes. The Administration Commission entered its Final Order on June 22, 1999. The 1999 Final Order directed the County to take specific remedial actions that would bring the comprehensive plan into compliance, including: rescinding the EAR-based amendments that were not in compliance; adopting certain specifically described remedial amendments; undertaking a comprehensive assessment of all lands in the County designated in the comprehensive plan as Agricultural/Rural, the Big Cypress Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, conservation lands outside the urban boundary, and South Golden Gate Estates (hereinafter referred to as the “Assessment”); and establishing interim development provisions during the Assessment period, including a moratorium on certain types of development, and the designation and mapping of certain specified NRPAs. On November 23, 1999, the County adopted the Interim Amendments, intended to establish the interim development restrictions and provide for the Assessment ordered by the 1999 Final Order. As set forth in detail in the June 29, 2000, order granting the County's Motion in Limine, to the extent that the County merely enacted measures specifically ordered by the Administration Commission, those measures are not within the purview of this proceeding. Only those Interim Amendments that incorporate some measure of County discretion are subject to full "in compliance" analysis. The Interim Amendments Policies 4.9 and 4.10 of the Future Land Use Element of the Plan, enacted as part of the Interim Amendments, provide: Policy 4.9: Prepare a Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment, or any phase thereof, and adopt plan amendments necessary to implement the findings and results of the Assessment, or any phase thereof, pursuant to the Final Order (AC-99-002) issued by the Administration Commission on June 22, 1999. The geographic scope of the assessment area, public participation procedures, interim development provisions, and the designation of Natural Resource Protection Areas on the Future Land Use Map are described in detail in the Agricultural/Rural Designation Description Section. Policy 4.10: Public participation and input shall be a primary feature and goal of the planning assessment effort. Representatives of state and regional agencies shall be invited to participate and assist in the Assessment. The County shall ensure community input through each phase of the Assessment which may include workshops, public meetings, appointed committees, technical working groups, and established advisory boards including the Environmental Advisory Committee and the Collier County Planning Commission in each phase of the Assessment. The Interim Amendments also added the following language to the Future Land Use Designation Description Section, under the "Rural & Agricultural Area Assessment" section of Section II, entitled "Agricultural/Rural Designation:" The Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Administration Commission, on June 22, 1999, issued the Final Order (AC-99-002) pursuant to Section 163.3184(10)(b), Florida Statutes, in Division of Administrative Hearing Case No. 98-0324GM. Pursuant to the Order, Collier County is required to prepare a Rural and Agricultural Assessment (Assessment). This Assessment may be phased. The Geographic Scope of the Assessment Area shall be as follows: Includes: All land designated Agricultural/Rural Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern Conservation lands outside the Urban Boundary South Golden Gates Estates Excludes: All Urban designated areas Northern Golden Gate Estates The Settlement District The Assessment, or any phase thereof, shall be a collaborative, community-based effort with full and broad-based public participation and assistance from applicable State and Regional agencies. At a minimum, the Assessment must identify the means to accomplish the following: Identify and propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas. Such measures should prevent the premature conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats. 3. Assess the growth potential of the Area by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques including, but not limited to, public and private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions and mixed use development. The Assessment, or any phase thereof, shall recognize the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to development which may better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for the cost efficient delivery of public facilities and services. At the time of the hearing, the County had already commenced the process of conducting the Assessment. Two citizen advisory committees have been organized, each with responsibility for developing recommended land management policies for a specific geographical area within the scope of the Assessment. The Rural Fringe Committee is focusing its attention on that portion of the Assessment area closest to the west coast urban boundaries. The Rural Lands Committee is focusing on the largely agricultural lands in eastern Collier County. Unless the Administration Commission modifies the schedule set forth in the 1999 Final Order, the comprehensive plan amendments resulting from the Assessment must take effect on or before June 22, 2002. In addition to providing for the Assessment, the Interim Amendments impose additional restrictions on the use of land within the Assessment area while the Assessment is underway. These "Interim Development Provisions for the Agricultural/Rural Assessment Area" provide: Amendments based on the Assessment shall be completed by June 22, 2002. Residential and other uses in the Area for which completed applications for development approval, rezoning, conditional use, subdivision approval, site plan approval, or plats were filed with or approved by Collier County prior to June 22, 1999, shall be processed and considered under the Comprehensive Plan as it existed on June 22, 1999. If the County elects to address a specific geographic portion of the Area as a phase of the Assessment, the interim land use controls shall be lifted from the specific geographic area upon completion of the applicable phase of the Assessment and the implementing Comprehensive Plan amendments for that phase becoming effective. Until the Assessment is complete and Comprehensive Plan amendments to implement the Assessment, or any phase thereof, are in effect, the only land uses and development allowable in the area shall be those set forth in the Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District and the Land Development Code (Section 2.2.2) in effect on June 22, 1999 for the Agricultural/Rural District, except the following uses are prohibited and shall not be allowed: New golf courses or driving ranges; Extension or new provision of central water and sewer service into the Area; New package wastewater treatment plants; Residential development except farmworker housing or housing directly related to support farming operations, or staff housing (12 du/ac) and other uses directly related to the management of publicly-owned land, or one single-family dwelling unit per lot or parcel created prior to June 22, 1999; Commercial or industrial development except gas and telephone facilities, electric transmission and distribution facilities, emergency power structures, fire and police stations, emergency medical stations; Transient residential such as hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast facilities; Zoo, aquarium, botanical garden, or other similar uses; Public and private schools; Collection and transfer sites for resource recovery; Landfills; Social and fraternal organizations; Group care facilities; Sports instructional schools and camps; Asphalt and concrete batch making plants; and Recreational vehicle parks. These interim development standards shall not affect or limit the continuation of existing uses. Existing uses shall also include those uses for which all required permits have been issued, or uses for which completed applications have been received by the County prior to June 22, 1999. The continuation of existing uses shall include expansions of those uses if such expansions are consistent with or clearly ancillary to the existing use and do not require a rezoning or comprehensive plan amendment. These interim development standards mirror those ordered by the Administration Commission in the 1999 Final Order. The Interim Amendments also designated certain areas as Interim NRPAs and added additional limitations on the development allowed within those areas. The Interim NRPAs and accompanying restrictions are as follows: The following areas shall be generally mapped and identified as Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs): Camp Keais Strand, CREW Lands, Okaloacoochee Slough, Belle Meade and South Golden Gate Estates. Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs) are designated on the Future Land Use Map: Within these areas, only agriculture and directly-related uses and one single-family dwelling unit per parcel or lot created prior to June 22, 1999, shall be allowed; These interim development standards shall not affect or limit the continuation of existing uses. Existing uses shall also include those uses for which all required permits have been issued, or uses for which completed applications have been received by the County prior to June 22, 1999. The continuation of existing uses shall include expansions of those uses if such expansions are consistent with or clearly ancillary to the existing use and do not require a rezoning or comprehensive plan amendment; The general location shall be identified on a map as the interim NRPAs and shall be refined as actual data and analysis is made available during the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment. Objective 1.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Interim Amendments further explains the County's purpose in establishing the Interim NRPAs and how they would be treated during the Assessment: Pursuant to Administration Commission Final Order AC-99-002 dated June 23, 1999, complete the phased delineation, data gathering, management guidelines and implementation of the NRPA Program as part of the required Collier County Rural and Agricultural Assessment. The purpose of the NRPAs will be to assist State and Federal agencies’ efforts to protect endangered or potentially endangered species (as listed in current “Official List of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora Florida”, published by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the predecessor agency of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) and their habitats. Pursuant to the Administration Commission Final Order, the County has mapped and identified the Camp Keais Strand, CREW Lands, Okaloacoochee Slough, Belle Meade and South Golden Gate Estates as NRPAs, with the express understanding that during the Rural and Agricultural Assessment (Assessment) required by the Final Order, the goal of assisting in the protection of endangered species and their habitat will be further addressed and that appropriate protection measures will be incorporated into the comprehensive plan amendments to be adopted at the conclusion of the Assessment. In the interim, and during the Assessment, a development moratorium as set forth in the Final Order and in Ordinance 99-77 will be in place until comprehensive plan amendments are adopted. The County has determined that the development moratorium, the NRPA boundaries approved November 23, 1999, and the additional restrictions that apply within the existing Area of Critical State Concern provide sufficient protection for these resources on an interim basis until adoption of the final comprehensive program to protect these resources. In selecting the final comprehensive program the County, as part of the Assessment, will evaluate the NRPA program and its criteria and implementation as well as other programs which may better provide adequate protection to the resources. In addition to the Interim NRPAs, the County determined that certain other areas within the Assessment area should be specifically addressed and evaluated as part of the Assessment, thus creating "special study areas" ("SSAs") pursuant to Policy as follows: The Program will, subject to completion of the Assessment and adoption of the comprehensive plan amendments, include the following: Identification of the NRPAs in map form as an overlay to Future Land Use Map. Pursuant to the Final Order, the general areas of Camp Keais Strand, CREW Lands, Okaloacoochee Slough, Belle Meade and South Golden Gate Estates have been mapped and identified as NRPAs on the Future Land Use Map. The areas shall be further refined as the Assessment is implemented as a collaborative and community-based effort. All available data shall be further considered and refined during the Assessment to determine the final boundaries of these NRPAs. As part of the Assessment, the County shall evaluate the merits of including additional areas into these boundaries including, but not limited to, the area of Northern Belle Meade, the area known as the “Stovepipe” to the north, northwest and northeast of the Okaloacoochee Slough and the area southwest of the Okaloacoochee Slough to the southeastern portion of the Camp Keais Strand which is south of Oil Well Road (CR 858). These additional study areas are shown on the Future Land Use Map. Within these study areas, the following shall be the primary focus of additional study: North Belle Meade Study Area: examine the extent to which existing agricultural operations, improvements and facilities have impacted water flow and quality, wetlands and habitat for the Florida panther and other listed species; examine the impacts of abutting urban and Estates development; examine access into the area and connectivity to other habitat as it relates to the Florida panther; examine opportunities for restoration of flow-ways, buffering from abutting development and improvements for listed species habitat through actions to include consideration of the addition of underpasses to Interstate 75; examine the impacts of potential earth mining activities on the above resources; and examine whether use of transfer of development rights would be appropriate in this area and, if so, whether there should be any restrictions on their use; examine the possibility of public acquisition of these properties. Stovepipe Study Area examine the level of existing and permitted agricultural improvements and impacts on listed species and their habitats; examine whether the existing Area of Critical State Concern program affords sufficient protection to listed species and their habitat; examine the possibility of acquisition of these properties by State or Federal programs, including partial acquisition programs, an example of which would be conservation easements; examine whether use of transfer of development rights would be appropriate in this area and if so, whether there should be any restrictions on their use; examine and analyze the Florida panther’s use of agricultural lands and whether such agricultural lands constitute critical habitat for the species; and examine and analyze whether any lands should be restored. Oil Well Road (CR 858) Study Area examine the extent to which existing agricultural and mining operations, improvements and facilities have impacted listed species and their habitat; examine documented movement of the Florida panther in the area; examine and analyze the Florida panther’s utilization of agricultural lands and whether such agricultural lands constitute critical habitat for the species; examine whether use of transfer of development rights would be appropriate for this area and, if so, whether there should be any restrictions on their use: and determine whether the east/west wildlife corridor provided by the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and the Big Cypress National Preserve provides sufficient connectivity to protect the species. In addition to the moratorium referenced above, the County shall give notice to the Florida Department of Community Affairs if all applications to develop or otherwise impact the above special study areas. * * * The County recognizes that the NRPA program is not the only mechanism to protect significant environmental resources and that the NRPAs being established at this time are of an interim nature in conjunction with the development moratorium required by the Final Order. As a consequence, the designation of an area as a NRPA or as part of a special study area is not intended to affect property valuation on specific parcels. It is anticipated that the Assessment will address all of the issues identified above and that the resulting comprehensive plan amendments will provide resource protection measures best suited to meet the goals and objectives of this comprehensive plan. Establishment of Interim NRPA Boundaries The 1999 Final Order directed the County to adopt five areas as Interim NRPAs: the Camp Keais Strand; the CREW Lands; the Okaloacoochee Slough; Belle Meade; and South Golden Gate Estates. The 1999 Final Order does not provide a map or legal description of these five areas. Even aside from the 1999 Final Order, there are no maps or legal descriptions to describe precisely the boundaries of these areas. The evidence established that there is a general understanding of the location of these areas, but that the County necessarily exercised discretion in defining the boundaries of these Interim NRPAs. The term "Natural Resource Protection Area" is not defined in federal or state laws or regulations. The term is a creation of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, and was first included in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element ("CCME") of the 1989 Plan. The 1989 Plan contained the adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies governing land use and development in the County. The 1989 Plan also included data and analysis that was not adopted as a binding part of the Plan. The unadopted data and analysis in the 1989 Plan included a support document for the CCME. This support document set forth the standards for NRPAs. It designated NRPAs as "eco- systems having extremely important ecological functions," and ranked four subcategories according to "the degree of restrictiveness of protection afforded": Estuaries and Coastal Barrier Areas Water Protection and Conservation Areas Critical Ecological Corridors Rare, Unique and Endangered Habitats. William Lorenz, the County's natural resources director, testified that the County looked at these categories to provide general guidelines for the functions of NRPAs. The County employed an iterative method in developing the Interim NRPA boundaries, with County staff developing, reviewing, and modifying draft maps. Mr. Lorenz testified that there was a good deal of debate among staff members as to the location of the Interim NRPA boundaries. The County also sought the assistance of outside agencies, including the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. James Beever, a biological scientist, was the Conservation Commission's principal liaison with the County for purposes of the Interim NRPA determination. Mr. Beever testified that he did not use the 1989 Plan in making his recommendations because the County asked him to use the best available scientific information, which was not necessarily included in the 1989 Plan. Mr. Beever also testified that he was unfamiliar with the County's development moratorium for rural Collier County at the time he developed his recommendations. The Conservation Commission, through Mr. Beever, recommended a procedure for the delineation of NRPAs: Start with the existing proposed land acquisition boundaries or Florida Panther Recovery Plan boundaries for the designated areas. For the Southern Golden Gate Estates, this will be all that is needed to define that NRPA. For all other areas, such as the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW), expand the NRPA beyond the acquisition boundary when there is existing connected native habitats. Roadways alone do not sever connection, since wildlife underpasses can be incorporated in NRPA criteria. This would "pick up" habitat continua that were not in the original boundaries that may have been drawn strictly on straight section lines. Some examples would be to include: undeveloped areas of Northern Belle Meade, above Interstate 75, that were included in the original study performed by Kim Dryden and myself, connecting the proposed Winding Cypress DRI to the Southern Belle Meade, and including the entire Bird Rookery Swamp system attached to CREW. County staff considered these recommendations and other materials, and arrived at seven "General Guidelines for Delineating NRPA Boundaries": Identify major wetlands systems and regional flow-ways. Incorporate areas having upland native habitat contiguous to the identified major wetland systems and regional flow-ways. Provide for areas containing listed species habitats that are contiguous to the identified wetland systems and regional flow- ways. Include areas that are identified on the 1999 CARL Acquisition List, unless the area is severely impacted. Provide connections to other existing conservation areas. Include areas with minimal fragmentation from existing residential developments and transportation systems. Provide sufficient land area to buffer native habitats from intensive land uses. Applying these criteria, the County transmitted to the Department proposed Interim NRPAs that included 140,564 acres. Almost 125,500 acres of this land is wetlands, accounting for 13% of all wetlands in Collier County. One of the Petitioners' chief contentions was that the boundaries of the Interim NRPAs adopted by the County were significantly smaller than the boundaries proposed by County staff. The Petitioners did not object to any of the lands actually included in the Interim NRPAs; rather, they believed that more lands should be added to them. As to the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough NRPAs, the biggest point of debate in the County was the amount of agricultural lands that should be contained in the Interim NRPAs. This was debated before the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission, as well as the Environmental Advisory Council. County staff’s initial proposal included more agricultural fields in the Interim NRPAs than the County finally adopted. The County ultimately excluded intensive agricultural lands and mining pits from the Interim NRPA delineations. As to the Camp Keais Strand NRPA, the County ultimately excluded extensive farm and row crop fields, as well as active storm water management systems located on these agricultural lands. Mr. Lorenz testified regarding County staff’s initial recommended NRPAs. County staff initially relied heavily on the Closing the Gaps report and its derivative materials, discussed below. Staff also initially relied upon the South Florida Water Management District’s "Florida Land Use Coverage Classification System" ("FLUCCS"), which is a display of land coverage information from the 1994-1995 database. Staff also coordinated with Mr. Beever, as noted above. County staff initially drew their proposed Interim NRPA boundaries along section and quarter section lines. Mr. Lorenz acknowledged that natural features typically do not follow section and half section lines, and that the boundaries finally selected more closely reflect natural features rather than legal descriptions. ECPO provided County staff with aerial photographs of the land in the eastern Collier County, and Mr. Lorenz had discussions with people who actually farmed that land. The information provided by ECPO was used in determining the interim NRPA boundaries that the County finally adopted. One area eliciting a great deal of evidence at hearing was North Belle Meade, which the FLUCCS map indicates is 90% wetlands. North Belle Meade was excluded from the interim NRPAs for several reasons. First, it is surrounded on three sides by areas of accelerating urban development and is bordered by I-75 on the fourth side. Mr. Beever conceded that the development of North Golden Gate Estates, to the east and north, will greatly reduce the habitat value of North Belle Meade. Mr. Beever also conceded that I-75 is a barrier in the landscape continuum between North Belle Meade and the Belle Meade interim NRPA. Based on his general experience, Mr. Beever did not believe that the interstate prevents panthers from crossing from one area to the other, but he admitted that he had no specific information regarding panthers crossing I-75 between North Belle Meade and Belle Meade. North Belle Meade has not been identified as a habitat conservation area for the Florida panther by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Another reason for the exclusion of North Belle Meade was the large number of individual landowners and small parcels platted within the area prior to June 22, 1999. The 1999 Final Order provided that developments approved prior to June 22, 1999, would not be subject to the use restrictions otherwise imposed by NRPA designation. This provision led the County to exclude from the Interim NRPAs those areas with approved developments. In North Belle Meade, landowners could permissibly build a single family residence on each parcel platted before that date, even if the area were designated as an interim NRPA, thus minimizing the utility of the designation. Finally, hydrologic changes have already had significant impact on the native vegetation of North Belle Meade, distinguishing its character from that of those areas adopted as interim NRPAs by the County. The areas designated as Interim NRPAs are large, connected systems. The criteria emphasized connecting areas with native habitat cover, which led to the exclusion from the NRPAs of active agricultural areas located on the outer edges of areas being considered for inclusion. Both Gary Beardsley and Mr. Beever testified that certain wildlife, such as the Florida panther and wading birds, use agricultural areas as habitat, particularly where there is a mosaic of agriculture mixed with native vegetation. They also testified that there is no hard data as to the extent to which such species rely on agricultural areas, or as to the type of agricultural uses that enhance, rather than degrade, the habitat value of lands. Mr. Beever disagreed with the Interim NRPA boundaries established by the County, but he also testified that he would not recommend including within those boundaries areas that have been converted from native to non-native vegetation, particularly active agriculture with heavy hydrological maintenance. The Department reviewed the transmitted NRPA boundaries and issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments ("ORC") Report. The ORC Report objected to the exclusion of three areas that appeared to meet the requirements for Interim NRPA designation: North Belle Meade; the "Stovepipe" area to the north, northwest, and northeast of the Okaloacoochee Slough; and the area southwest of the Okaloacoochee Slough that links the Slough to the southeastern portion of the Camp Keais Strand. The County responded by establishing the three SSAs described in Finding of Fact 26 above, covering North Belle Meade, the Stovepipe, and Oil Well Road. The SSAs correspond to the exclusions noted in the ORC Report's objections. Within these areas, the County recognizes the potential for significant natural resource issues, but also recognizes the impact of agricultural and mining activities on those resources. The Petition The Petitioners allege that the Interim NRPA delineations are not "in compliance" for the following reasons: They are not supported by data and analysis, as required by Section 163.3177(6)(a),(8), and (10)(e), Florida Statutes and Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code; They are not supported by data and analysis regarding the suitability of authorized land development; They fail to ensure adequate protection of natural resources; They are internally inconsistent with the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, particularly CCME Objectives 1.1 and 1.3, and Policy 1.3.1; and They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, particularly Section 187.201(10)(a),(10)(b)(1),(10)(b)(3), (10)(b)(5), and (10)(b)(7), Florida Statutes. Data and Analysis The five interim NRPAs specified by the 1999 Final Order all lie outside the urban boundary of the County. The privately owned land in rural Collier County is predominantly in active agricultural use. Tom Jones, director of government affairs and environmental resources for Barron Collier Partnership, described rural Collier County as one of the most intensely farmed areas in southwest Florida. Mr. Jones testified that citrus operations have been in place around the Corkscrew Marsh and Lake Trafford since the 1960s, with expansions occurring in the 1980s and again in the 1990s. Tomato and potato cultivation have been in place for decades south of Lake Trafford along the Camp Keais Strand. Citrus, pasture, and row crops have occupied large expanses of rural Collier County since the end of World War II. These operations are conducted on a large scale. Mr. Jones pointed to one phase of citrus planting by Barron Collier Partnership that covers 4,500 acres. He also indicated that a single stormwater detention area for a tomato farm covers 13 square miles. Publicly owned land is also prevalent in rural Collier County. The area contains Big Cypress National Preserve, the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve, Collier Seminole State Park, and the Cape Romano- - Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve. Approximately 73% of the land in Collier County is either in public ownership or on an active acquisition list. No evidence was presented at the hearing indicating substantial residential development pressure in rural Collier County. Robert Mulhere, the County's planning director, testified that the established use of the land for agriculture has been under pressure for conversion to "upscale master plan residential golf course communities." The 1999 Final Order recognized this pressure, requiring that the Interim Amendments prohibit golf course development during the assessment period. The Petitioners contend that one of the most important sources of data and analysis relating to the wildlife and wildlife habitat of rural Collier County is Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System, a 1994 publication by individuals working for the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (now the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). Closing the Gaps was an effort to map the land cover of the entire state, based on computer analysis of Landsat satellite imagery collected from 1985 to 1989. About 2.72 million acres, or 8% of the land area of Florida, was field inspected using a helicopter equipped with a Loran-C unit. The authors stated that, based on field reports, they estimated the overall accuracy of the land cover map at 80 to 90%, though they also acknowledged that accuracy varies according to the type of land cover being mapped. Ross McWilliams, an environmental consultant testifying on behalf of ECPO, stated that Closing the Gaps is a "good general document" and contains the best available data to someone looking at Florida from a large scale perspective in terms of land forms and types of species. Closing the Gaps states that the portion of Collier County northwest of the Big Cypress National Preserve, consisting of a "mixture of cypress swamp, hardwood swamp, dry prairie, and pineland represents one of the most important wildlife areas remaining in Florida." Closing the Gaps, p. 174. Closing the Gaps finds that nearly all of the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern that is not publicly owned is good habitat for the Florida panther, Florida black bear, and the American swallow-tailed kite. Id. Closing the Gaps reports that the privately owned lands west of State Road 29 and north of I-75 support a stable Florida black bear population, and rates much of the privately owned portion of the Big Cypress area as outstanding potential bear habitat, in terms of proximity to conservation areas, extent of roadless areas, diversity of cover types, and the presence of specific cover types. Closing the Gaps, p. 52, 174. Closing the Gaps states that "quick and aggressive action" is required to save the Florida panther from extinction, and cites the conversion of large areas of rangeland and native land cover to agriculture as one the greatest threats to the continued existence of panther habitat. The report singles out citrus development as a threat to subdivide existing, contiguous panther habitat. Closing the Gaps, p. 68. Among its suggestions for protecting natural resources, Closing the Gaps cites acquisition of privately held lands as the most effective and least controversial method, along with the purchase of lesser rights such as conservation easements. Closing the Gaps also urges local governments to protect valuable habitat through their comprehensive plans. Closing the Gaps, p. 191. ECPO agreed that Closing the Gaps is a useful tool for examining Florida's natural resources in terms of habitat and species at a statewide level in order to determine where there may be gaps in the state's conservation programs. However, ECPO convincingly demonstrated that an effort to base local planning decisions on the large scale satellite imagery utilized by Closing the Gaps is a misuse of that document. The text of Closing the Gaps itself contains disclaimers as to the utility of its satellite maps: The maps appearing in this report are intended to provide guidance to decision makers involved in public land acquisition, land use planning, development regulation, and other land conservation efforts. The maps represent our best estimate of those Florida lands that require some form of conservation to ensure that biodiversity is maintained for future generations. However, these maps represent only a snapshot of Florida’s conservation needs at one time. For example, the vegetation map used to create species distribution maps was based on satellite imagery dated 1985-1989; the species occurrence information is current through 1991-1993, depending on the species; and the database of public land boundaries extends only through 1992. As a consequence, some areas identified for protection may already be in public ownership or may no longer support the habitat features or species predicted to occur there, and the maps should not be incorporated into law or rule as inviolate zones in which no development may occur. Rather, the maps should be used as a layer of information when decisions are made concerning land acquisition, land-use planning, and development regulation. Closing the Gaps, p. 1 (Emphasis added). Another portion of Closing the Gaps restates its limitations as a definitive document for local planning purposes: The reader should be aware that the maps represent only a snapshot of Florida’s conservation needs at one point in time. The data on which the maps are based are already out-dated, and they will become increasingly out of date as time goes by. For example, the satellite imagery used for vegetation mapping and habitat modeling was collected between 1985 and 1989. Undoubtedly, some natural areas we identified as needing protection have been destroyed during the time it has taken to collect and analyze the data and publish the results. The temporal nature of the maps has two effects. First, because some areas identified as needing protection may no longer support the habitat features or species expected to occur there, these maps should not be incorporated into law or rule as inviolate zones in which no development may occur. Rather, the maps should be used as a layer of information in the making of decisions concerning land acquisition, land- use planning, and development regulation. Second, as time goes by, new parcels of land come into public ownership, new data become available on the locations of rare species, and the character of the Florida landscape changes. As a result, project maps are continually being updated with new information, and the latest version of the maps actually resides in the computer at the Office of Environmental Services. Therefore, before using the maps in this report for detailed management decisions, users should contact the Office of Environmental Services at the address below for the latest information on lands currently recommended for protection. Closing the Gaps, p. 9 (Emphasis added). Mr. Beever testified that he used Closing the Gaps in making his recommendations on behalf of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, but conceded that aerial photographs provided by ECPO's consultants were more up to date and accurate. The evidence presented by ECPO demonstrated not only that some of the information in the Closing the Gaps maps is out of date, but that it was inaccurate even at the time the satellite images were made as applied to the relatively small scale of the areas at issue. Parts of the North Camp Keais area that were labeled "other vegetation" in Closing the Gaps were actually in agricultural use. Tim Durham of Wilson Miller, ECPO's consultant, testified that the inaccuracies were a function of attempting to apply habitat models based on the large scale satellite maps in Closing the Gaps to what is actually on the ground in a relatively small area. Mr. Durham stated that "it's almost like static on a T.V. screen. You’re starting to see a bunch of things that aren't really there. The habitat models were assuming habitats that weren't really out there." Mr. Durham found that the satellite imagery in Closing the Gaps provided inaccurate data that some of the agricultural lands contained four or five different habitat types in a tight mosaic. This data would cause a computer model erroneously to classify these agricultural lands as good native habitat. Mr. Beever noted that the Closing the Gaps data is being updated. However, the update continues to assume the correctness of the earlier data, leading the unwary reader to assume that large areas of natural habitat have been converted to agriculture between the years 1986 and 1996, though in fact the lands at issue have been in agricultural use throughout this period. Ross McWilliams, ECPO's environmental consultant, conducted an analysis of Closing the Gaps in comparison to what is actually on the lands in eastern Collier County and concluded that the vegetative land cover set forth in Closing the Gaps contained extensive errors. Mr. McWilliams found that Closing the Gaps mapped thousands of acres of agricultural lands as "scrub and brush." Mr. McWilliams visited 14 specific sites in eastern Collier County rural areas, and found that the "signature" (i.e., the identification of the predominant type of land cover) set forth in Closing the Gaps was incorrect for all 14 sites. The Petitioners also presented evidence that the Interim Amendments do not afford adequate protection to listed species. The exhibits presented by the Petitioners to establish the location and extent of Collier County habitat for the red cockaded woodpecker, wading bird rookeries, bald eagle, black bear, and Florida scrub jay were all based on Closing the Gaps data and thus not entirely reliable. As noted above, Closing the Gaps is not a reliable tool for establishing land cover on the small scale required for local planning purposes. Its findings as to habitat and potential habitat were based on its land cover findings, and therefore also suspect. The Petitioners also presented panther telemetry data to indicate the movement of the Florida panther in Collier County. The telemetry data persuasively demonstrated the presence of panthers in the area, but were inconclusive to establish the number of panthers moving through the area or their precise activity patterns. One of the purposes of the Assessment is to examine the telemetry data in order to better understand the panthers' movement and plan for their protection in the final plan amendments. This points to the overall conceptual problem with the Petitioners' case: it is premature. The Petitioners challenge the Interim NRPAs as not based on a thorough assessment of the County's natural resources, when the 1999 Final Order contemplates that the Interim NRPAs are a necessary prelude to that very assessment. The 1999 Final Order directed that the Assessment will cover virtually all of rural Collier County, and will have a three-part purpose: identify and propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas and prevent premature conversion of agricultural lands to other uses; direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity, maintain the natural water regime, and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats; and assess the growth potential of the Assessment area by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques, recognizing the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to development that may protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The concerns raised by the Petitioners at this hearing are the same concerns voiced by the 1999 Final Order, which sets forth the procedures the County is to follow. The Petitioners are in effect asking the County to reach its conclusions as to natural resources issues before it undertakes the Assessment mandated by the Final Order. This request is impracticable. The testimony at the hearing established a broad scope for the Assessment and the amendments that may arise therefrom. The Assessment may result in the expansion of the Interim NRPA boundaries. It may result in the creation of new NRPAs. The County may arrive at a solution for protecting its natural resources that does not involve the designation of NRPAs. Based upon the data available to the County, and keeping in mind their transitional nature, the boundaries defined for the Interim NRPAs are at least fairly debatable. The concerns raised by the Petitioners will be addressed during the Assessment period. Once the Assessment is completed, the Petitioners will have the opportunity to contest the County's finished work product.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding the Interim Amendments to be "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 4th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Laurence Keesey, Esquire R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A. 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34108 Ernest A. Cox, Esquire Patrick W. Maraist, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli & Stewart 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 500E West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-6161E Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Marjorie M. Student, Esquire Collier County Attorney's Office Administration Building, 8th Floor 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112-4902 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Findings Of Fact Gerretson is the owner of Lot 2, Block 2, Sea View Subdivision, Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. 1/ On January 11, 1984, Gerretson applied to Monroe County for a land clearing permit. The permit, as requested, would have permitted him to clear his lot of vegetation in the area proposed for his house, driveway and septic tank. 2/ Gerretson's application was denied, as was his appeal to the Monroe County Board of Adjustment; however, on October 16, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County (Monroe County), by resolution, reversed the decision of the Board of Adjustment. The Department, pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, filed a timely appeal with the Adjudicatory Commission. The subject property The Sea View Subdivision is sparsely developed, and its lands are in a natural state except for the existence of two roads. The subdivision is bounded on the north by Port Pine Heights, an established subdivision; on the east and south by lands belonging to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as part of the National Key Deer Refuge; and on the west by Pine Channel. The Sea View Subdivision is itself within the boundaries of the Key Deer Refuge. Gerretson's lot is located at the southern extreme of the subdivision; abutting the lands belonging to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Government) and the northern limit of Watson Hammock, a unique natural area containing endemic, rare and endangered plant and animal species. Separating the Government's property from Gerretson's, is an unnamed 25' wide platted, but non-existent road. 3/ Currently, the closest vehicular access to Gerretson's property is by a fire break on the Government's land. This fire break is separated from Gerretson's lot by an area of natural vegetation approximately 70' in width. To access Gerretson's property from the subdivision would require that the lands dedicated for "no name road" be cleared of native vegetation a distance of 100'- 200' to the closest existing road. There are no plans, however, to construct "no name road." 4/ Gerretson's property is typical of the surrounding area, and characteristic of an old and well established pineland community. Vegetation includes endangered, threatened, and protected species such as South Florida Slash Pine, Key Cassia, Ladder Brake Fern, Thatch Palm, Cabbage Palm, and Silver Palm. Applicable development regulations Gerretsons' property is located in that portion of Monroe County designated as an area of critical state concern. Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes. As such, development must be consistent with Chapters 27F-8 and 27F- 9, Florida Administrative Code, as well as Monroe County's comprehensive plan. Pertinent to these proceedings are Rule 27F-8.03(5), Florida Administrative Code, the coastal zone protection and conservation element of Monroe County's comprehensive plan, and Sections 18-16 through 18-25 of the Monroe County Code. 5/ Rule 27F-8.03(5), Florida Administrative Code provides: Third Objective: Protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife and their habitat. Guidelines: * * * 5. Prohibit any significant disturbance, including but not limited to land clearing and excavation, of established habitats for documented resident populations of endangered species . . . Monroe County's comprehensive plan, the coastal zone protection and conservation element, dealing with natural vegetative resources and terrestrial wildlife resources provides: NATURAL VEGETATION MANAGEMENT POLICIES In recognizing the need to preserve as much natural vegetation as possible, the County will direct its land use and development regulations to minimize destruction of natural vegetation and modification of landscape. Guidelines and performance standards designed to protect natural vegetation from development will be developed and enforced. Clearing of native vegetation for development will be controlled. Land clearing will be restricted to site area being prepared for immediate construction. If the construction cannot begin within reasonable time, the cleared area will be replanted with ground cover. In areas where temporary removal of vegetation is necessary during construction, replanting of ground cover will be carried out as soon as possible. The unique and endangered status of the hardwood hammock community; and the critical role of the pineland in providing the only living habitat for the Key Deer will be recognized add given due consideration in developing future land use regulations. Development in and adjacent to hardwood hammock and pineland areas will be carefully regulated so as to maintain normal drainage patterns and the ecological balance of the entire area. Outstanding, rare, and unique communities of hardwood hammock and pineland will be preserved to the greatest extent possible. * * * The existing county ordinances designed to protect and conserve natural vegetation will be strictly interpreted, rigidly enforced, and/or amended when necessary. The County will seek assistance from and cooperate with the appropriate State and Federal agencies in developing and enforcing regulations designed to protect rare, threatened and/or endangered plant species from development, vandalism, tree poaching, and plant thefts. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT POLICIES In order to conserve and wisely manage the Keys' wildlife resources, the County will conscientiously direct its efforts toward the protection and improvement of wildlife habitats throughout the Keys. Development activities which may degrade, destroy, or severely impact productive areas for wildlife will be required to assess possible means and, to the extent practicable, adopt protective measures for abating these impacts on wildlife populations and habitat. Recognizing that each wildlife group has its own requirements and tolerances, the adequacy of protective measures will be evaluated for each individual species occupying the habitat. Improvement of habitat through encouragement of native vegetation which would give desirable species the best chance to flourish will be supported and encouraged. Planning, design, siting, and construction of public capital improvements and facilities such as roads, solid waste disposal sites, and utility lines and structures will be carefully regulated to minimize impact on wildlife habitat and movement patterns. The County will exert special protective efforts regarding the preservation of rare, endemic, endangered, or threatened species as identified by Federal and State agencies and the habitat required to support these species in the coastal zone. Intensive development will be directed away from the habitat of rare, endemic, endangered, or threatened species. * * * 7. Introduction as pets of those exotic animal species which may represent a potential danger to the native wildlife will be discouraged. Pertinent to this proceeding, the Monroe County Code (Code) provides: Section 18-18 Land clearing permit . . . It shall be unlawful and an offense against the county for any person . . . to clear . . . any land located within the unincorporated areas of the county without having first applied for and obtained a land clearing permit from the building department . . . * * * (c) Review and approval of development site plans which results in the issuance of a development order shall constitute compliance with the requirements of this section. In such cases the land clearing permit will be issued in conjunction with the building permit. * * * Section 18-19 Same-Application . . . Any person requesting a land clearing permit shall file an application with the county building department on a form provided by such department. Such application shall contain the following information: * * * A map of the natural vegetative communities found on and adjacent to the site, prepared by a qualified biologist, naturalist, landscape architect or other professional with a working knowledge of the native vegetation of the Florida Keys . . . With projects that are five (5) acres or more in size, the vegetation map does not have to identify the location of individual trees An overall site plan of the land for which the permit is requested, indicating the shape and dimensions of said land, the purposes for which clearing is requested, and the steps taken to minimize effects of clearing on surrounding vegetation and water bodies. A site plan analysis prepared by a qualified individual, as described above . . . shall be included. Prior to the issuance of a land clearing permit, the building department shall field check the proposed clearing site and shall verify on the application that the facts contained therein, relative to the location and description of vegetation, are factually correct. * * * Section 18-21. Same - Approval. After an application for a land clearing permit has been filed and verified, the building department and the planning and zoning department shall review and consider what effects such removal of vegetation will have upon the natural resources, scenic amenities and water quality on and adjacent to the proposed site. Upon finding that such removal of natural vegetation will not adversely affect the natural resources, scenic amenities and water quality adjacent to the proposed site, the permit shall be approved, approved subject to modification or specified conditions, or denied . . . Areas of concern Gerretson's property and the surrounding refuge area are prime habitat for the Key Deer. 6/ The Key Deer is listed as a threatened species by the State of Florida and endangered by the Federal Government. 7/ Currently, the Key Deer population is on the decline from a once stable population of about 400 to a current population of about 250. 8/ This decline is directly attributable to loss of habitat and the consequent adverse impacts of human presence, such as increased automobile traffic, large domesticated dogs, and loss of wildness in the deer. While the proposed clearing of Gerretson's lot would, in and of itself, probably not significantly impact the Key Deer or its habitat, the fact that he has no road access to his property will require the continuous crossing of adjacent natural habitat and significantly expand the sphere of human impact on the deer. Additionally, the purpose of Gerretson's lot clearing cannot be ignored in analyzing the ultimate impacts of his proposal. The purpose of Gerretson's permit is to allow the construction of a single family residence on his lot. Gerretson's lot is located at the southern extreme of Sea View Subdivision, and his home would be the first built in the area. The construction of this house alone, with its consequent human presence, would adversely impact the Key Deer and its habitat. Considering the precedential nature of Gerretsons' construction, the cumulative impact from the project on the deer would be significantly greater. 9/ Notwithstanding the evident adverse impacts, Gerretson failed to offer any plan to mitigate the impacts of the proposed land clearing and construction on the Key Deer population. Gerretsons' proposal would also displace endemic, protected, threatened and endangered plant species in the area of the proposed house, driveway and septic tank. To support his application, Gerretson submitted a vegetation survey by a "qualified person." The survey does not, however, "map" the natural vegetation by locating individual species but, rather, divides Gerretson's lot into four quadrants and lists the vegetation found in each quadrant. While there is no dispute that the survey accurately lists the vegetation to be found in each quadrant, the survey is of little or no value in identifying the significant vegetation that will be displaced by construction, analyzing the site to determine the least disruptive site layout, or developing an adequate transplanting or revegetation scheme. In sum, Gerretson's vegetation survey fails to comply with the letter or spirit of the Monroe County Code. 10/ At hearing, Gerretson averred that he would transplant any endangered or threatened species, and would limit his fill activity to that required for the septic tank system. 11/ He failed, however, to identify the species that would be impacted or offer any plan for transplantation or revegetation that could be evaluated for its likelihood of success. In sum, Gerretson failed to offer any viable plan to mitigate the impacts of his proposal on endemic, protected, threatened and endangered plant species. The Department also asserts that the subject permit should not issue because Gerretson's property does not abut an existing road. Section 19-135, Monroe County Code, provides: No building or structure shall be erected on a parcel of land which does not abut a public or private road having a minimum width of fifteen (15) feet. The fact that "no name road" does not exist would preclude Gerretson, absent variance from the Monroe County Code, from securing a building permit to construct his residence. While the subject permit is a land clearing permit and not a building permit, there is no rational basis to grant a clearing permit to construct a house if the house cannot be built. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to condition the issuance of a land clearing permit on the issuance of a building permit.
The Issue Whether Respondent Neal Colley should be issued a permit to fill certain wetlands located within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Regulation.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Environmental Regulation is the agency with regulatory jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, pursuant to Chapter 403, Part VIII, Florida Statutes, and related administrative rules. On or about October 19, 1989, Neal Colley (hereinafter "Colley") filed his Permit Application No. 571717171 with the Department of Environmental Regulation (hereinafter "DER") seeking a permit to fill wetlands located within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Department. Colley's application was related to a residential development identified as the Deer Point subdivision located in Gulf Breeze, Florida. As proposed in the application, the subdivision would contain 0.91 acres of fill in jurisdictional wetlands, 31 buildable lots and a 31 slip marina. The site of the development is adjacent to Pensacola Bay and Santa Rosa Sound, Class III waters. In February, 1990, Colley modified the application by deleting the proposed marina. Colley also proposed to fill on an additional 14 lots, bringing the total of jurisdictional wetlands fill to 2.8 acres. On July 6, 1990, subsequent to review of the application, the DER published notice of it's intent to deny Colley's application. The DER based the action on Colley's failure to provide reasonable assurances that the project would not result in significant wetlands habitat loss and water quality degradation. Colley filed a request for administrative hearing challenging the intent to deny the application. 1/ Thereafter, Colley and the DER discussed several amendments to the application directed at meeting the DER's objections to the original application. On or about August 20, 1990, Colley modified the proposed development by reducing the total number of lots to 31 and reducing the fill required. Colley further agreed to other conditions designed to otherwise mitigate the apparent adverse impacts of the project. In determining the acceptability of a mitigation proposal, the DER weighs the proposal and assigns "credit" for the mitigation proposal which provides a quantifiable method of evaluating a mitigation proposal. For example assignment of a 1 to 1 ratio indicates that there must be one acre of "mitigation" for every one acre of fill. In this case, the combined mitigation credit would allow the filling of 2.16 acres of fill. In his mitigation proposal, Colley reduced the amount of fill for which permission is sought to 2.14 acres in jurisdictional wetlands. This is the minimum which will provide Colley with an economically acceptable number of buildable lots. As onsite mitigation, Colley agreed to convey 29.2 acres of high quality wetlands adjacent to the existing public "Shoreline Park" to the City of Gulf Breeze for preservation as an additional public park. Of the 29 acres, 9 are jurisdictional wetlands which the DER assigned a mitigation ratio of 70 to The remaining 20 wetlands acres were assigned a mitigation ratio of 50 to 1. The application of the mitigation ratios to the 29 acres results in credit of .50 acres of fill. Colley also agreed to offsite mitigation in the form of preservation of 46 acres of high quality jurisdictional wetlands at Innerarity Island, to be conveyed by Colley to the University of West Florida. The DER assigned a mitigation ratio of 100 to 1, resulting in a credit of .46 acres of fill. Colley further agreed to onsite creation of 1.47 acres of marsh. The marsh creation plan provides for scraping down the land surface between two existing wetlands areas and planting the scraped surface with wetlands vegetation consistent with the vegetation found in the existing wetlands. Based upon the location of the wetlands creation and the availability of suitable vegetation for transplantation, there is a substantial likelihood that the created wetlands will function successfully. The DER assigned a mitigation ratio of 1.25 to 1, resulting in a credit of 1.2 acres of fill. The DER staff, both locally and in Tallahassee, reviewed the amended project and determined that the proposal, as amended, was acceptable under the DER's standards. The DER gave notice of it's intent to issue the permit for the amended project proposal. The greater weight of evidence establishes that the amended project will not violate water quality standards. In the short term construction phase, the permit requires sequencing of construction and use of hay bales and other turbidity screens to prevent discharge of runoff into the adjacent wetlands. In the longer term, post-construction phase, the project utilizes a system of retaining walls and buffer swales which are designed to prevent direct discharge of stormwater into the wetlands areas. The project permit requires utilization of best management practices and design standards which should operate to prevent violation of water quality standards. The greater weight of evidence establishes that the amended Colley project is not contrary to public interest. The preservation of a total of 75 acres of high quality wetlands by conveyances to the City of Gulf Breeze and the University of West Florida eliminates further development pressure in the parcels, and is clearly in the public interest. The evidence fails to establish that the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. There is no evidence that the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitat or that the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The biological impacts of the amended project are minimal. There is no evidence that endangered or threatened species habitat in the area. There was anecdotal testimony related to adverse impacts on fishing allegedly resulting from other development. However, the evidence is insufficient to establish that this project will adversely affect fishing. There is sporadic water exchange between the surrounding bays and the interior wetlands, likely caused by periods of high rainfall which result in outflows of water from the wetlands into the bays. Water flowing from the bays to the wetlands may occur on occasion, however, water salinity samples taken immediately prior to the hearing showed, at most, minimal salinity in the wetlands. The types of vegetation and marine organisms within the wetlands are more common to fresh water areas than to salt water marsh. There is no evidence that the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The permanent nature of the project and the wetlands preservation conveyances provide a public benefit and are in accordance with the mitigation criteria. The existing wetlands to be preserved are acknowledged to be of high quality. Considering the site and existing vegetation adjacent to the location of the proposed 1.47 acres of created wetlands, the probability for success of the created wetlands area is substantial. It is highly likely that the created wetlands will provide the same conditions and functional values as the impacted wetlands. There is no evidence that the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources. The evidence establishes that the adverse impacts which led to the DER's original determination not to permit the project, are either eliminated by the modification of the project or are offset by the mitigation plan which is part of the modified project. As to the cumulative impacts of the project, the onsite preservation proposal results in providing permanent protection for a 29 acre wetlands parcel which could otherwise be permitted for development. Outside this project, including the 29 acre wetlands mitigation area, there are few undeveloped lots remaining in the Deer Point area which contain jurisdictional wetlands. Prior to development on these lots, permits would be required. The lots would be required, on a case-by-case basis, to meet dredge and fill standards, and could be required to mitigate adverse impacts if such exist. The evidence establishes that the Colley project adequately mitigates any cumulative impact directly or indirectly related to this project. At hearing, the Petitioner failed to testify or otherwise offer evidence that would support a finding that Petitioner is substantially affected by the DER's proposed issuance of the permit for Colley's Deer Point Subdivision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Linda L. Young and granting permit number 571717171 to Neal Colley. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1991.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest as set forth in Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes and Rule 17-312.300 et. seq., Florida Administrative Code. Whether Petitioner has reduced the environmental impacts of the project in conformance with Section 403.918, Florida Statutes and Chapter 17-312.200, Florida Administrative Code. Whether the Respondent considered the cumulative impacts of the project pursuant to Section 403.919, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Environmental Regulation is the administrative agency of the State of Florida with the authority to administer the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and the rules pertaining thereto with regard to matters involving water quality and the dredging and filling of wetlands, as defined therein. The Intervenor, Manasota-88, is a public interest environmental protection and conservation organization incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida as a not-for-profit corporation. Manasota-88 is a citizen of the State of Florida for purposes of Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes and thereby has standing as a party in these proceedings. Petitioner, VQH, is the permit applicant and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Republic Bank of Clearwater, Florida who acquired the tract in foreclosure proceedings. Respondent, DER, is the affected state permitting agency. On November 18, 1989, VQH applied for a permit to dredge and fill wetlands on a site in southern Pasco County for purposes of commercial development. The site is comprised of both uplands and wetlands and is located on the east side of U.S. Highway 19 in Holiday, approximately one mile north of the Pasco County border with Pinellas County. After the Department denied the initial application VQH modified the application to reduce the to be destroyed wetlands from 14 acres to 11 acres and on November 17, 1992 the Department executed an Intent to Issue the subject permit to VQH. On December 4, 1992 Manasota-88 timely filed its petition to intervene in opposition to the grant of the permit and these proceedings followed. In addition to the above the parties stipulated the following are not issues in these proceedings. Water quality standards; Outstanding Florida Waters; Threatened or endangered species; Navigation, flow of water, erosion or shoaling, and Significant historical and archaeological resources. As stated in the notice of Intent to Issue (Exhibit 12) The project site consists of 94 ac. of forested uplands and wetlands. The wetlands on site are located along a drainage divide; they drain to both the Anclote River on the east and the Gulf of Mexico on the west through a series of ditches, roadway culverts, canals, and natural wetlands. The 52.52 ac. of wetlands on site are mature, red maple dominated swamps typical of the Anclote River flood plain. This site previously included cypress as one of the dominant canopy species, as noted by the number of remaining stumps, but appears to have been logged within the last 40 years. The canopy is currently dominated by red maple; also present are sweetbay, water oak, swamp laurel oak, water tupelo and cabbage palms. Due to the substantial conflict in the evidence in this regard the evidence was insufficient to establish the erstwhile dominance of cypress in this area. The development proposed is in the southwest corner of the 94-acre tract just east of U.S. 19. Near the center of the proposed development a bell- shaped upland area extends north from the southern boundary of the property. Petitioner proposed to fill to the east and west of the bell-shaped uplands some 8.9 acres. The other 2.1 acres included in this requested permit are for a road along the southern edge of the property which will be an extension of Society Drive and provide a needed east-west corridor in this part of Pasco County. The principal concern of those opposed to the granting of this permit is the filling of the wetlands between the bell-shaped area westward to U.S. 19. This area consists of hummocks originating from fallen trees or logs on which the hardwood trees are located. Between these hummocks are deep pockets which contain water for extended periods. As stated by one witness whose testimony was generally corroborated by other witnesses. The VQH wetland represents a complex ecosystem. Due to the relief, complex flow patterns, muck depths and overall age of the system there is a high diversity of habitat for aquatic fauna and wetland dependent animals. The deepest and most complex section of the system on the site is the area proposed for permanent destruction. The diversity of aquatic fauna of the area to be filled is a function of the permanency of the pools dotting the landscape. The longer the site is wet through an annual cycle the more likely aquatic fauna with long life cycles will flourish. As an example, a number of aquatic insects require 5 or more months to hatch out, mature and emerge as adults to complete the life cycle. The longer water remains on the site the greater the number of species adaptable to the conditions will flourish. The importance of this is to develop high diversity and a well balanced population of not only the invertebrates but also the fishes and other animals dependent on these invertebrate life forms for food. (Exhibit 17, p.6) The project application is one of the most controversial ever received by the DER Southwest District Office, not only because of the proposed destruction of a valuable wetland area but also because of the high visibility of this project as one of the few undeveloped areas along the U.S. 19 corridor. A genuine concern expressed by several opponents of this application is that if this permit is granted, numerous other property owners of wetland properties along other major highways will also be requesting permits to fill and develop their properties. This is a valid concern; however, if the proposed mitigation is found to be adequate and replaces three acres of wetlands to every one destroyed, the state will gain wetlands and not suffer a permanent loss of wetlands. Other applicants could also be required to provide adequate mitigation to compensate for the proposed loss of their wetlands. Proposed findings submitted by DER and Manasota-88 extoll the virtues and benefits accruing to the state from the wetland area proposed for filling. It is accepted as fact that the proposed destruction is of a high quality hardwood wetlands and, absent adequate mitigation, is contrary to the public interest. Although there is testimony from Petitioner's witness that the standing water and long hydroperiods in this hardwood wetlands decreased the undergrowth that would otherwise be expected, this evidence does not materially detract from the ecological value of these wetlands. The testimony of Petitioner's witnesses that reducing the foot print of the proposed development from 13+ acres to 8.9 acres constitutes the minimum area for the proposed shopping center to be economically viable was not rebutted, although several DER employees opined that the project had not been adequately minimized. This leaves the principal issue to be decided is whether the proposed mitigation, if carried out as required by the draft permit approval, has a substantial probability of success. Intervenor's witnesses, except for Ann Redmond, DER's mitigation coordinator, are all employed in the DER Southwest District Office and all oppose granting the permit here involved primarily because of the historical lack of success of projects to develop fresh water hardwood wetlands. The proposed permit to be granted also involves the removal of an abandoned waste water treatment plant owned by Pasco County which is a potential source of pollution, modification of existing ditches which serve to channel water coming onto the property, placing culverts under the FPC road and right- of-way berm, and placing some 95 acres in a conservation easement. As provided in the notice of Intent to Issue (Exhibit 12), the mitigation for the loss of 11 acres of mature forested wetland shall include the following implementation plan: create and restore 18.6 ac. forested wetland from existing uplands; remove an abandoned wastewater treatment plant and create 8.8 ac. of forested wetlands; convert an existing 2 ac. ditch contiguous to the wastewater treatment plant to a forested wetland system; convert 2.95 ac. of existing ditch within a Florida Power Corp. (FPC) easement to an herbacious wetland system; restore 0.75 ac. of disturbed herbacious wetlands within the FPC easement by regrading and planting with shrubby species; create 1.49 ac. shrubby wetlands from uplands within the FPC easement. install two culverts within the FPC easement roadway; restore 1.55 ac. of upland by planting with mesic and traditional hardwood species; and place all created, restored and converted wetlands (34.60 ac.) and the remaining existing wetlands and uplands on site, 60.78 ac. including 15.42 ac. within the FPC easement, in a perpetual conservation easement. The impact area has a tree density of approximately 1000 trees per acre. Red maple was found at a density of approximately 157 per acre and black haw was found at approximately 230 shrubs per acre. To recreate this density Petitioner proposes planting one gallon size trees on 6 foot centers over 50 percent of the site. However, it is proposed to create a more natural effect by clumping some trees together in some areas and space them further apart in other areas. These one gallon trees will be 30 percent pond cypress, 30 percent pop ash, 30 percent black gum and a 10 percent a mix of swamp bay, red maple and laurel oak. More of the mature trees will be removed from the impact site by spading (remove tree and root system with a machine designed to do this) and transplanting to the mitigation areas. The conditions included in the DRAFT permit with the notice of Intent to Issue contain detailed clearing and planting requirements which, in some respects, differ from the Petitioner's testimony presented at this hearing. As an example, under paragraph 7 the following is required: The wetland creation restoration, conversion, upland restoration, and upland and wetland preservation, shall be conducted prior to or concurrent with the wetland impacts, and shall be completed to the point of planting of tree species no later than one year after the commencement of the wetland impacts. Under paragraph 9 the following requirement appears: A minimum of one foot of fresh organic soils or muck, stock piled for not longer than 7 days, obtained from the wetland impact site, shall be uniformly spread over the entirety of the wetland creation and conversion areas prior to the final grading. Within thirty days of the completion of grading, the wetland creation and conversion areas shall be surveyed. A topographical map, showing a minimum of one foot contour intervals based on a 50 foot grid, certified by a registered land surveyor or professional engineer, shall be submitted to the Bureau of Wetland Resource Management in Tallahassee and to the Southwest District Office in Tampa within 60 days of the completion of the final grading. In this connection it is essential that the tree spading be accomplished during the trees' dormant period from November to March. Petitioner was anxious to have an expedited hearing so the tree spading could be completed by early march. It is presumed that all of the transplanting and spading is intended to be done between November 1993 and March 1994 if this permit is granted. Petitioner's witnesses indicated that if the transplanting (by spading) is not done in the plant's dormant period their survival rate will be low and nursery grown plants would be used in lieu of spading. The draft period requires 7 gallon trees to be used to substitute for trees not spaded. Petitioner proposes, and the DRAFT permit requires, the Petitioner to grade the existing uplands intended for conversion to wetlands to provide gradients low enough to qualify as wetlands and be inundated at various times of the year. Petitioner proposes to establish a wetland area where the water will move across the property in a sheet flow eastward towards the Anclote River basin. The spread of organic material over the planting sites will improve the probability of success of the mitigation project by reason of the seeds in the soil plus the benefit of the muck to the propagation and growth of the planted trees and scrubs. The water level in the newly created wetlands will be monitored by gauges established at the easterly part of the property and the hydroperiod for the area established and maintained. Further, in the first two years of the planting, Petitioner will provide for temporary irrigation of the newly planted area if necessary. Also Petitioner will maintain 85% survival for the trees planted in the first two years by planting additional trees as needed. Petitioner also proposed and the DRAFT permit requires the removal of some of the hummocks from the impact area to the newly created wetlands.. In 1990 the Florida Legislature instructed DER to assess the use and effectiveness of mitigation in Wetland Resource Regulation permitting. The study was intended to evaluate wetland mitigation projects required by DER permits in terms of compliance with both: 1) the permit conditions, and 2) whether the created wetlands were biologically functional, i.e., animal species diversity and density, plant reproduction, water quality, hydroperiod, etc. That study resulted in a Report on the Effectiveness of Permitted Mitigation dated March 5, 1991. (Attachment B to Exhibit 16) This study found a high rate of noncompliance with mitigation requirements in permits issued. The ecological success rate of mitigation design for freshwater permits was only 12 percent. However, it was predicated that with remedial action this rate could rise to 41%. The study made recommendations for improvements in DER policy and rules involving mitigation projects which included the consideration of mitigation options in the following sequence: enhancement of degraded wetlands, or restoration of historic wetlands; preservation of other wetlands in conjunction with other forms of mitigation; and wetland creation. This committee further recommended that Creation should only be accepted if review of the creation proposals indicates that it includes features to ensure that it will be successful. In all cases, if the proposed mitigation does not provide reasonable assurance that the wetland losses can be offset, the project should be denied. (Exhibit B of Exhibit 16) Without changing rule provisions DER began to orient its view of the minimization process that is required by Rule 17-312.060(10) by stressing that step in the process. They also re-assessed the use of wetland creation from uplands as a common mitigation option, describing it as the least preferable mitigation option, especially for freshwater wetlands. Additional studies conducted on behalf of the South Florida Water Management District and the St. Johns River Water Management District found lack of compliance with mitigation requirements, and lower success rates for fresh water mitigation than salt water mitigation. The March 5, 1991 Report found the following four factors to be critical in assuring a high likelihood of success: Constructing the wetland floor at the proper elevation relative to the groundwater table. There must be a hydrologic connection between the mitigation wetland and other waters of the State to ensure the wetland is within Department wetland resource regulation jurisdiction and functions as a water of the state. The topography and configuration of the wetland should coincide with the permit requirements to yield the required wetland acreage. Regular maintenance of the wetland to reduce exotic and nuisance plants during its establishment. The mitigation proposal submitted by Petitioner addresses each of the above four factors. Additionally, Petitioner is required to post a bond before commencing the project of $440,000 (110% of the estimated cost of the mitigation) to ensure sufficient funds are available to complete the mitigation project. Generally speaking a mature wetland is developed only over an extended period of many years. On the other hand the attempt to develop wetlands from uplands to provide mitigation for the destruction of other wetlands is quite new, leading opponents to conclude this to be more art than science. Serious studies and experiments with developing wetlands have occurred only in the past 10-15 years. These studies have not only indicated that wetlands can be created, but also have shown that developing freshwater wetlands is a very difficult task requiring dedication and close attention to the project. During the past decade a lot of misconceptions have been corrected but the process has not as yet reached the stage for the success of a project to generate freshwater hardwood wetlands can be guaranteed. A similar lack of progress has been made in creating freshwater undergrowth (shrubs). While the intent to deny this application in 1989 was signed by Carol Browner, DER Director, and the intent to grant was signed by Janet Llewellen, Bureau Chief for the Bureau of Wetland Resource Management, the ultimate decision in both instances was made by Browner, who, in deciding to grant the instant application, overruled the recommendation of a majority of the DER staff involved with this project. This accounts for the conditional "if successful" acceptance of the mitigation plan by those DER staff members who testified in support of the application.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that permit (File No. 511731859) be issued to VQH Development, Inc. in accordance with and subject to the conditions contained in the DRAFT permit attached to the notice of Intent to Issue Permit. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1993. APPENDIX Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are accepted except: 18. Second sentence. Accepted as uncontradicted testimony of Petitioner's witness. 30. Rejected that there is a diminished overall value of these wetlands because of reduced or no understory. 36. First sentence rejected. No credible evidence was submitted that any historic wetlands on this property were filed by man. 38. First sentence rejected as confusing. 40. Third sentence rejected as fact; accepted as the testimony of VQH contractor. 61. Sentence 5(2) rejected as fact; accepted as a hoped for condition. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent are accepted, except: 7. Whether red maple or laurel oak is the dominant species was disputed. However, both tree species are present in significant numbers and naming one dominant is irrelevant. 19. Whether red maple or laurel oak is the dominant species was disputed. However, both tree species are present in such significant numbers that naming one dominant is irrelevant. Proposed findings submitted by Intervenor are accepted, except: 12. Property is rectangular in shape. 18. Last sentence rejected as contrary to witness' testimony. 20. Rejected as irrelevant. VQH project has been approved in principle by Pasco County. 22. Rejected as irrelevant. VQH project has been approved in principle by Pasco County. 28. I would characterize the mitigation proposals as neo-typical. 34. Second sentence rejected. Red maple and laurel oak dominate site. 38. Second and third sentences irrelevant as to cause of thin understory. 60. Rejected as fact. This is a conclusion of law. 62.-66. Rejected as fact. These are conclusions of law. Accepted as unwritten rule. Unwritten rule not proved valid in these proceedings. 68d. Last sentence. See HO #14. Rejected as f act. This is a legal conclusion. Rejected. This opinion of one witness is in conflict with the actions of DER in this instance. 83. Absent a definition of success the opinion here conflicts with the testimony of BRA's expert. 96.-99. These are legal conclusions. 101.-102. Rejected. VQH submitted numerous plans showing the reduction of the footprint on wetlands. 103. Rejected. Mudano also testified that the property on which all such stand alone stores are owned by the store. 105. Word practical rejected. 107. Rejected. Notice of Intent to Issue carries with it the conclusion that the project had been minimized as required by statutes. This is a conclusion of law. Rejected. 115. The date of February 1, 1993 a time to start on this project was not mentioned in this hearing. See HO #23. 117. While this mitigation plan may be consistent with present day requirements it is much more complex and detailed than were former mitigation plans which did not meet expectations. 118.-119. Rejected. 120. Conclusion of Law. 122. Conclusion of Law. 122. (Second) Last sentence rejected. 124. Rejected. 126.-128. Conclusions of Law. 130. Rejected. 132.(first)-134. Conclusions of Law. 133.-134. Conclusions of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Wilcox, Esquire Post Office Box 3273 Tampa, Florida 33601 3273 E. Gary Early, Esquire Post Office Box 10555 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 2555 Buddy Blair, Esquire 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 123 Eighth Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400
