The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted the relief requested in his petition challenging the Department of Environmental Protection's Consolidated Notice of Denial [of] Environmental Resource Permit and Consent of Use to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a collector and wholesaler of various "saltwater products," as defined in Chapter 370, Florida Statutes.1 He possess a saltwater products license (issued pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 370, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 46-42, Florida Administrative Code), with a restricted species and marine life endorsement, which allows him to engage in these activities. Petitioner collects and sells, among other things, what is referred to as "live sand," a calcium carbonate sediment used in public and home aquaria as a decorative detoxifying agent. "Live sand" is found on offshore water bottoms in the Florida Keys (where Petitioner engages in his collection activities) and other areas in Florida. "Live sand" consists primarily of the calcified (dead) remains of Halimeda plants. Halimeda plants (generally on a seasonal basis) produce plates, which they ultimately shed. These plates, through various physical and biological processes, are broken down over time into smaller and smaller granules. Halimeda plants are very productive (in terms of the number of plates they produce), but they are found only in certain (not all) offshore areas in the Florida Keys. While the granules that make up the "live sand" Petitioner collects and sells consist of dead plant matter, thousands of micro and macroorganisms (in a cubic foot area), representing numerous species, live amongst these granules and therefore are also removed from the water as a result of Petitioner's collection activities. The microorganisms living in "live sand" include nitrosomous bacteria. The presence of nitrosomous bacteria enables "live sand" to neutralize the ammonia waste products of fish in public and home aquaria. Among the macroorganisms living in "live sand" are mollusks, worms, arthropods, and echinoderms. These organisms are an important part of the diet of other species, including protected species such as the spiny lobster (Panulirus argus), which itself is part of the food supply for fish in the area. Petitioner collects "live sand" by diving underwater and using his hands to scoop up and place in buckets the top layers of the bottom ("live sand") substrate. Such collection activities have negative environmental consequences that are not insignificant. They adversely impact water quality in the waters in which they occur and in adjacent waters inasmuch as they increase turbidity and reduce biological diversity. Excavation of the top layer of bottom substrate exposes the siltier sediment below, which, when disturbed, reduces water clarity and therefore also the amount of sunlight that penetrates the water. Furthermore, this newly exposed substrate, because of its anaerobic nature, is unable to attract a significant benthic community comparable to that found in the "live sand" that previously covered it. In addition, because these collection activities result in the removal of organisms that are important components of the aquatic food chain and in loss of their habitats, these activities have an adverse effect on marine productivity and, resultantly, on fishing and recreational values. The "live sand" that is the subject of the instant controversy is located in Monroe County within the boundaries of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in state waters designated Class III, Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW).2 Petitioner first contacted the Department in writing regarding the removal of this "live sand" in May of 1997, when he sent the Department a letter which read, in pertinent part, as follows: REF: Collection of Sand for Use in Aquari[a] Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation, I respectfully request that I receive a letter of de minimis for the aforementioned activity. The sand is collected by hand using five gallon buckets. The collection occurs under water [at] a depth of approximately 20 feet. The sand occurs in an area devoid of marine grasses, plants and corals. No sand is taken from or near shorelines and no sedimentary resultant is produced. I intend to collect four five gallon buckets each of which contains 50 pounds of sand. This collection is to occur once a month. . . . By letter dated June 2, 1997, the Department acknowledged receipt of Petitioner's letter and requested that he provide "additional information" to enable the Department to determine whether it should grant him "an exemption from the need for an Environmental Resource Permit pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and an authorization to use state- owned submerged lands, pursuant to Chapters 253 and 258, F.S., to collect sand, by hand, from underwater." On August 28, 1997, Petitioner supplied the Department with an "addendum to [his] original request for consideration" in which he specified the location of his "proposed collection" of "live sand" as "Lat. N 24.31.29 - Lon. W 081.34.40. The Department deemed Petitioner's "addendum" insufficient to render his paperwork "complete." By letter dated September 23, 1997, the Department so advised Petitioner. Along with letter, the Department provided Petitioner with the following "revised request for additional information identifying the remaining items necessary to complete [his] application": Part I REVISED COMPLETENESS SUMMARY FOR SAND COLLECTION The proposed project will require an Environmental Resource Permit. The correct processing fee for this project is $500.00. Provide a $500 processing fee payable to the Department of Environmental Protection. In your letter received May 6, 1997, requesting a De Minimis exemption you state you intend to collect four (4), five (5) gallon buckets of sand each of which contains fifty (50) pounds of sand per month. A letter you submitted to the Department from the Army Corps of Engineers (dated May 9, 1997) states you will collect four (4) or five (5), five (5) gallon buckets three (3) times per month. Please indicate the quantity of sand you propose[] to collect per month. Part II CONSENT OF USE (Chapters 18-18, 18-20 and 18-21, Florida Administrative Code) For your information If the project develops to the point where proposed dredging will be recommended for authorization, payment for the removal of sovereign submerged land will be required at $3.25 per cubic yard, or a minimum payment of $50.00 prior to issuance of the authorization. Do not provide payment until requested by Department staff. [See 18- 21.011(3)(a), F.A.C.] Petitioner timely responded to the Department's "revised request for additional information" by letter dated October 10, 1997, to which he attached the requested "processing fee." In his letter, Petitioner advised the Department that it was his "intent to collect approximately 600 (six hundred) pounds of material each month." Following its receipt of Petitioner's letter and accompanying "processing fee," the Department sent letters to potentially affected parties advising them of Petitioner's "proposed [sand collection] activit[ies]" and soliciting their comments concerning these activities. The Florida Department of Community Affairs responded to the Department's request by indicating, in written correspondence it sent to the Department, that it had "no objection to the proposed project." The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also provided written comments to the Department. It did so by letter dated November 21, 1997, which read as follows: The following are comments from the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) concerning the application from Jeff Frankel to collect live sand, File No 44-0128760-001. These comments reflect the consensus of both NOAA and FDEP Sanctuary staff. The harvest of live sand is viewed by the Sanctuary as dredging. This activity is considered neither fishing nor traditional fishing activity. Therefore, "harvesting of live sand" is within the prohibition against dredging, or otherwise altering the seabed of the Sanctuary and does not fall within the exception for "traditional fishing activities" as Mr. Frankel asserts. As such this activity should not be conducted in the Sanctuary without a Federal or State permit. The Sanctuary is opposed to permitting this activity in Federal or State waters for the following reasons: As stated above, it is a dredging activity which is prohibited.3 The Sanctuary exists because of the unique and nationally significant resources found here. These resources exist due to the dynamic ecosystem of which sand, and the meiofaunal communities found therein, is a major component. The Sanctuary is opposed to unnecessary alteration of the ecosystem particularly when viable alternatives exist such as harvesting outside the FKNMS in Gulf waters and aquaculture. Sixty-five percent of the Sanctuary seabottom is State sovereign lands. Removal of the quantities of substrate for commercial purposes does not appear to be in the public interest. Pursuant to the intragency compact agreement between the State of Florida and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration dated May 19, 1997, NOAA will not permit a prohibited activity in federal waters in the Sanctuary that is not allowed in the State waters of the Sanctuary. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this application. On January 8, 1998, the Department issued its Consolidated Notice of Denial [of] Environmental Resource Permit and Consent of Use to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands. In its Consolidated Notice, the Department gave the following reasons for its action: The Department hereby denies the permit for the following reason: The proposed project will directly impact water quality by removal of approximately 660 pounds of "live sand" from state-owned sovereign submerged land each month. The material collected consists of dead calcareous green algae (Halimeda spp.) and calcium carbonate grains. This substrate is important habitat for grazers and detritivores and it contains an extensive and diverse invertebrate community. . . . The project as proposed does not comply with the specific criteria within; Chapter 373, F.S., F.A.C. Rule 62-300, and Section 4.2 of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District. The above impacts are expected to adversely affect marine productivity, fisheries, wildlife habitat, and water quality. The applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the immediate and long-term impacts of the project will not result in the violation of water quality standards pursuant to F.A.C. Rule 62-312.150(3) and 62-312.070. Specific State Water Quality Standards in F.A.C. Rules 62-302.500, 62-302.510, 62- 302.560 and 62-4.242 that will be affected by the completion of the project include the following: Biological Integrity- . . . . This project will also result in the following matter which are not clearly in the public interest pursuant to Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S.: adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitats; diminish the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity; adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; the activity will be permanent in nature; adversely affect the functions and relative value of the habitat within the area of the proposed project. Therefore, the Applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the project is clearly in the public interest pursuant to Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S. The request for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands is denied because the Applicant has not met all applicable requirements for proprietary authorizations to use sovereign submerged lands, pursuant to Article X, Section 11 of the Florida Constitution, Chapter 253 F,S., associated Chapter 18-21, F.A.C., and the policies of the Board of Trustees. Specifically, operation of the activity is inconsistent with management policies, standards and criteria of F.A.C. Rule 18- 21.00401(2) and 18-21.004. The Applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the activity will be clearly "in the public interest," will maintain essentially natural conditions, will not cause adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources or public recreation or navigation, and will not interfere with the riparian rights of adjacent property owners. In addition, the project is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the "Conceptual State Lands Management Plan," adopted by the Board of Trustees on March 17, 1981. The . . . activity is inconsistent with Section 18-21.00401(2), F.A.C., the authorization to use sovereign submerged lands cannot be approved, in accordance with Sections 18-21.00401 and 62-343.075, F.A.C., because the activity does not meet the conditions for issuance of a standard general of individual permit under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., as described above. The Consolidated Notice accurately describes the adverse impacts of the "project" which is subject of the instant case (Project). Petitioner has not proposed any measures to mitigate these adverse impacts. If the Department authorizes the Project, it is reasonable to anticipate that other collectors of "live sand" would seek the Department's approval to engage in similar activity in the area. If these other projects were also approved, there would be additional adverse environmental consequences. As the Consolidated Notice alleges, Petitioner has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the Project would not degrade the ambient water quality of the OFW in which the Project would be undertaken, nor has he provided reasonable assurance that the Project is clearly in the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying Petitioners' application for an environmental resource permit and for a lease to use sovereign submerged lands. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 12th day of January, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner SFWMD is a public corporation of Florida. It is charged with the responsibility of issuing permits and enforcing orders relating to surface water management within its jurisdictional boundaries. Respondents Hubschman, as trustees, have full rights of ownership in 1,280 contiguous acres located in Sections 17 and 20, Township 47 South, Range 26 East, Lee County, Florida. These lands are known as Bonita Farms I and II. They are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of SFWMD. In their pre- developed state, these lands could generally be categorized as marsh and wetlands with cypress forest and some uplands in the northern half of the project area. After deciding to develop the acreage for use as pasture and farmland for small vegetable crops, Respondents Hubschman applied for a surface water management permit from SFWMD. The purpose of the permit was to allow the construction and operation of a water management system that would serve both farms. A system was designed to drain water off both parcels through a 62-acre retention area into a natural slough system which runs water into Kehl Canal. In order to create the system, the Respondents Hubschman had the following facilities designed for the site: internal ditches, dikes, pumps, a retention area and control structures. On April 15, 1982, SFWMD issued Surface Water Management Permit No. 36- 00315-S, and Respondents Hubschman were allowed to proceed with their proposed construction plan. A modification to the permit was issued on April 14, 1983. The retention area was enlarged from 62 acres to 88 acres by relocating the perimeter dike. The outfall structure was revised in that the two pumps and the weir were to be replaced by three 18" CMP culverts that would discharge the drained water by gravity flow from the retention area through the slough into Kehl Canal. The duration of the construction phase of its permit was a three-year period, unless the construction of the permitted project discharge structure or equivalent had been completed prior to that date. After the close of the three-year period, there was a dispute between the Respondents and SFWMD as to whether the permit had expired. The controversy was resolved through a compromise agreement. An application for the reissuance of Permit No. 36-00315-S was filed on October 13, 1986. Instead of reissuing Permit No. 36-00315-S, as requested by Respondents Hubschman, SFWMD decided to issue a new permit on May 14, 1987. As part of the processing procedures, SFWMD again reviewed and approved the entire surface water management system designed to serve the 1,280 acres of land proposed by Respondents. Because the additional work proposed for Section 17, the northern section was limited at this stage of development to the selective clearing of additional upland areas to create more improved pasture, the new permit directed attention to Section 20, the southern section of the land. The new permit advised the Respondents that if they wanted to propose additional development to Section 17, they were required to seek a modification of this new permit, Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00764-S, to include those changes. The Respondents applied for a modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S on July 30, 1987. The proposed modification sought to change the status of the development of Section 17 from improved pasture to small vegetable farmland on 639 acres. The surface water management system plan was modified to drain water in Section 17 to the reservoir on Section 20. The water would be directed via a series of lateral ditches and swales. A six foot high dike and one 27,000 GPM pump were also required. Two additional 18" CMP culverts were required at the discharge facilities to accommodate the increased outflow. The Modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S was approved and issued on June 16, 1988. The original Permit NO. 36-00764-S and its modification are similar to a contract novation because the new permits substituted new obligations between the parties for the old ones under Permit No. 36-00315-S. Based upon this approach to the situation, SFWMD allowed the construction work completed under Permit No. 36-00315-S prior to the Stop Work Order of August 27, 1986, to vest. The completion of the berm around the reservoir in Section 20, as set forth in the letter from Elizabeth D. Ross, attorney for SFWMD, on September 19, 1986, was also allowed to vest. However, if the vested matters were changed in the subsequent permits, they became revisions. The revisions take precedence over the vested matters. Otherwise, completed construction under Permit No. 36- 00764-S as modified, and post Stop Work Order construction remains in effect perpetually for the operation portion of the permit. In order to determine with certainty what was permitted when the Notice of Violation was issued on December 20, 1988, the parties would have to look to the project work actually completed on August 27, 1986, the specific construction approved by SFWMD after that date, the subsequent Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00764-S issued May 14, 1987, and its Modification issued June 16, 1988. The substantial compliance determination issued by Richard A. Rogers, P.E., Resource Control Department dated September 24, 1987, should also be considered as authorized activity. The Notice of Violation dated December 20, 1988, was issued to Respondent Samuel Hubschman, Trustee. He was advised that recent routine inspections indicate that current on-site activity was in violation of Special Conditions 2,3,4,7,14, 17 & 23 of Permit No. 36-00764-S (issued 5/14/87) and Special Conditions 5,16 & 22 of 36-00315-S (modified 6/16/88). A meeting to resolve these issued was suggested by SFWMD. Respondent Hubschman agreed to attend the meeting through his consultants. Both parties elected to attempt resolution of the Notice of Violation controversy through negotiations in a meeting scheduled for January 5, 1989. To demonstrate their sincerity, the parties agreed not to bring attorneys to the meeting. During the meeting, the parties resolved the controversy by agreeing to the following: SFWMD would no longer consider the project to be in violation of Florida law if the Respondents submitted certain items that would cause SFWMD to issue certain permits and modify others. The Respondents would promptly file an application for a dewatering permit so that the governing board could issue the permit at its March 9, 1989 meeting. The Respondent's contractor would make no field changes in the mitigation or excavation areas without first obtaining appropriate permit modification from SFWMD. Small jockey pumps were to be installed to pump water from the internal water management system into certain cypress and/or mitigation areas for the sole purpose of establishing wetland vegetation within the areas. Respondents were to apply for a modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, to allow a single phase of mining for the entire affected area. The perimeter dike was to be made structurally adequate. Respondents were to submit an alternative proposal for the disposal of cap rock within ninety days. In the meantime, the contractor could continue to bury the cap rock within the mitigation areas. Both parties demonstrated their reliance on the settlement reached in the meeting by their subsequent actions towards completing and processing the applications for permit modifications and additional permits. Although the noted violations were not cured by these actions, the parties intended to reach a cure or to mitigate for present permit violations through new permit conditions. The preliminary staff review of the Respondents' application for modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, was completed by March 31, 1989. The following information was requested by SFWMD staff: Revised engineering calculations which reflect that the permitted discharge structure is five 18" CMP culverts. An explanation as to why the 6.3 acre maidencane/juncus marsh designated as a preserve area and the adjacent western preserve area were excavated and otherwise disturbed by project activities. The scrapedown methodology for the replanting of mitigation areas. The Respondents' plans for the area delineated on the plans as pine, which is currently permitted as part of a cypress preservation area. Dike certification and reservoir certification. The above-listed information was required to be returned to the SFWMD within ninety days from the date of the written request. At the close of the ninety days, the information was not received. A second request for a response within thirty days was submitted by SFWMD on August 4, 1989. In September 1989, the Respondents attempted to comply with SFWMD's second request for information. Communications continued in regard to the filed application for modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, into December 1989. After the thirty days expired for the response to the second request for information dated August 4, 1989, SFWMD filed the Administrative Complaint in these proceedings. After the second request for information, a partial response was received from Respondent Hubschman's consultants. The application continues to go through the review process. It has not yet been deemed complete by SFWMD. As part of the resolution of the Notice of Violation dated December 20, 1988, SFWMD issued permit No. 36-01023-W to Respondent Hubschman for construction dewatering, excavation of an irrigation pond, and water storage at the site. The permit was issued on March 9, 1989. Special condition No. 20 of this permit requires a 200-feet setback from the cypress mitigation area and the irrigation pond being dewatered. The setback is shown on Exhibit 10 of the Bonita Farms Dewatering Application which was made part of the permit. A copy of the permit was attached to the Administrative Complaint. No evidence was submitted by SFWMD regarding alleged violations of Special condition No. 20 which were allegedly observed and documented after the permit was issued, before the filing of the Administrative Complaint Respondent Bob Cadenhead is the contractor hired by Respondents Hubschman to construct the surface water management system. There was no evidence presented to show the connection of another party, Respondent, Cadenhead & Sons Construction, to the project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00315-S be deemed to have vested as to all construction activity completed under the permit which was not addressed in the subsequent permit issued by SFWMD. The completion of the berm, as set forth in Attorney Ross' September 19, 1986 letter, should also be allowed to vest. That Permit No. 36-00764-S and its later modification be ordered to supercede the prior permit in all matters specifically addressed. That the parties be held to their prior agreements to resolve pending permit violations through the permit modification process. That the alleged dewatering violation in paragraph 19 of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed for lack of evidence. That a specific deadline be set to reasonably complete pending application modifications. That all future enforcement action specifically comply with Rule 40E- 1.612, Florida Administrative Code, and remain separate from any permit or permit modification applications. That the parties create a new, active permit file with current drawings and a specific construction schedule. That the Administrative Complaint and Order filed in these proceedings be dismissed. That future agreements be reduced to writing and signed by the proper parties before they are relied upon by either party. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5737 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO number 4. Accepted. See HO number 3. Accepted. Rejected. Improper summary. Accepted. See HO number 6. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Irrelevant. Argumentative. Rejected. Legal argument. Accepted. See HO number 5. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15. The argument presented in this paragraph is overly punctilious. It ignores the detrimental reliance of opposing parties to the agreement. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15 and number 16. Rejected. Legal argument and improper opinion. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15 and number 16. Rejected. Matters presented were either not ripe for these proceedings or not proved at hearing. See HO number 16-number 20 and HO number 23. Rejected. Contrary to fact and law. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings as separate from the Notice of Violation. Irrelevant. Accepted as fact, resolved by agreement. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 15. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 15. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. See HO number 15. Rejected. Cumulative. Rejected. See HO number 11-number 12. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO number 9. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 16-number 20. Rejected. Matter is still pending. See HO number 16-number 20. Rejected. Resolved through agreement. See HO number 15. Rejected. Matter is still pending. See HO number 16- number 20. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Not in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO number 21. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO number 13. Rejected. See HO number 23. Contrary to fact and pleadings. Accepted. See HO number 14. Accepted. See HO number 15. Accepted. See HO number 15. Accepted. See HO number 20. Accepted. Rejected. Argumentative. See HO number 20. Accepted. See HO number 4-number 7. Rejected. Contrary to fact. The permit modifica- tion specifically required replacement of a pump with 3 culverts. See HO number 5. Accepted. See HO number 5. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 7. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 7. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 7 and number 11. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 11. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO number 15. Additional matters were agreed upon which were not reflected in the letter. This is an incomplete summary. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant to these proceedings. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 8 and number 9. Rejected. See HO number 8 and number 9. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO number 23. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Fumero, Esquire Office of General Counsel South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire OERTEL HOFFMAN FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Russell Schropp, Esquire HENDERSON FRANKLIN STARNES & HOLT, P.A. 1715 Monroe Street Fort Myers, Florida 33902 John R. Wodraska, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the applicants, William Guererro and Christina Bang, a/k/a Christina Guerrero (Applicants), are entitled to issuance of a Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and State Lands Approvals for various structures on the Applicants’ property at 58458 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Bernard Spinrad and Marian Spinrad are the owners of adjoining parcels of property with the addresses of 58418 and 58420 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. They acquired the property in December 2001. They recently completed construction of two residential structures on the properties. The structure at 58418 Overseas Highway is currently listed for sale. The structure at 58420 Overseas Highway is a vacation rental property. Neither structure is Petitioners’ permanent residence. The DEP is the state agency with the power and duty to regulate activities in waters of the state pursuant to chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The DEP also serves as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“Board of Trustees”) to review and act on activities on state sovereignty submerged lands under chapter 253. The Applicants, are the owners of adjoining parcels of property with the address of 58478 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida (the Property). They purchased the Property in June 2010. The structures that are the subject of the Permit are to be constructed near or waterward of the shoreline of the Property. The Property The Property is located on Grassy Key, an island in the middle Florida Keys, within limits of the city of Marathon, Monroe County, Florida. U.S. Highway 1 passes through Grassy Key. The Property -- as is that of Petitioners -- is situated between U.S. Highway 1 and the open waters of the Atlantic Ocean. In the early part of the 20th century, a portion of Grassy Key was platted as the Crains Subdivision. The properties owned by Applicants and Petitioners are within the Crains Subdivision. During the periods of time directly relevant hereto, the Property has been owned by Burgess Levine, who owned the property during the period prior to the October 2006, landfall of Hurricane Wilma until June 2010, and by Applicants, who have owned the Property since June, 2010. Grassy Key Grassy Key is three-miles long, and has 6800 feet of beaches, none of which are designated as critically eroded. The island fronts the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and the more protected waters of Florida Bay to the west. The waters along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline of Grassy Key in the area at issue are shallow, with an extremely flat bottom having a very gradual slope of approximately 1 to 30, meaning there is a one foot vertical change over 30 horizontal feet. The mean tide range at the Property is about 1.7 feet. Under normal conditions, the stretch of Grassy Key at issue is fairly characterized as a zero-wave energy shoreline. Waves break well offshore and there is negligible wave energy propagating beyond that point. What shoreline energy exists is produced by small tide currents and wind-shear on the water surface that moves water along the shoreline. The direction of the water movement is dependent on tides and wind direction, with the predominant direction being from north to south. Erosive and other significant changes to the shoreline of Grassy Key, including that stretch fronting the Property, are event driven, meaning when there is a coastal storm that causes a rise in the water level, substantially higher than the astronomical tide, waves can propagate onto the shoreline of Grassy Key. The wind and waves can come from virtually any direction depending on the storm. A storm of greater intensity will create higher energy-wave conditions. Although storm conditions may only occur over 1 to 3 percent of a given year, with the rest of the year having zero-wave energy, on average the coastline may be considered to be of moderate-wave energy. The beach sediment along the Grassy Key shoreline in all areas pertinent hereto consists of calcareous material, made up of the breakdown of corals and coralling algae, with a significant fraction of other detrital marine material. The upper beaches of Grassy Key, including that on the Property, generally consist of coarse, calcareous sand with a small fraction of calcareous silt-size particles. The inter-tidal areas along Grassy Key consist of predominantly fine calcareous sand, with a greater fraction of calcareous silt. Extending out into the nearshore area all along Grassy Key, including that fronting the properties owned by Petitioners and Applicants, the sediment becomes a very fine calcareous sand, with a greater fraction of the material being calcareous silts and clays, and with a substantial amount of organic mud of a marine origin, classified as Islamorada muck. Since at least the 1970s, one wading in the nearshore waters along Grassy Key could expect to sink into the surface muck to a depth of anywhere from six inches to two feet. The depth of muck becomes less as one moves further out and approaches the offshore Thalassia beds. Although some areas offer more resistance than others, it is routine to experience difficulty in walking and wading along the coast of Grassy Key because of the high percentage of clays and silts in the substrate. The band of muck narrows as one proceeds towards the northern stretches of Grassy Key, until one reaches the furthest areas to the northeast where the nearshore transitions to exposed rock and hard bottom. The surface muck that exists in the nearshore waters of Grassy Key, having a sizable component of decaying organic material, gives off an odor of hydrogen sulfide when disturbed that some find to be unpleasant. The odor is a naturally- occurring condition of the sediment, and is common in mucky areas all around the southern coasts of Florida. The suggestion that the shoreline in the vicinity of the Petitioners’ property, and that of Applicants, was a naturally occurring white, sandy beach is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent the shoreline at Petitioners’ property may have been temporarily altered by the overwash from Hurricane Wilma as discussed herein, Petitioners’ own post-Wilma man-made efforts at beach stabilization, or the redistribution of sediments occasioned by Hurricanes Isaac and Sandy in 2012, the evidence demonstrates the “mucky” condition described herein to be more consistent with the natural and long-standing conditions of Grassy Key. Thus, as Grassy Key exists in the present time, one may expect to encounter six inches to two feet of loose muck anywhere along the nearshore area. Close to shore of Grassy Key are scattered beds of Halodule, a species of seagrass that tends to emerge and grow in shallow waters. The growth of Halodule is influenced by the nature of the sediments, the salinity temperature, and clarity of the water. Storm events have a significant effect on its growth. Given its transient nature, Halodule may vary in any given area from nonexistent, to spotty, to well-established beds. As one moves further offshore, the Halodule transitions to large, continuous beds of Thalassia. Thalassia grows in deeper water, and is common to a depth of about 12 feet. Being deeper and less affected by storm energy, the line of the Thalassia beds off of Grassy Key has not substantially changed over time. As wind and waves come across the grass beds, and as tides ebb and flow, grass blades are cropped. The amount of grass varies seasonally to a degree. The cropped and dislodged seagrasses, along with other organic material entrained therein, are naturally carried by the tides and wind and stranded along the shoreline. The stranded material is known as wrack, and the line of stranded material is known as the wrack line. Grassy Key is well known for the large seagrass wracks that pile up on the shoreline. A wrack line is a normal and natural occurrence in marine environments like that of Grassy Key, and can be a good indicator of the upper edge of the water action at a particular time. The cropping and dislodging of seagrass is accentuated during major or minor storm events. During Hurricane Rita in 2005, a very large seagrass wrack was blown onto the shoreline of Grassy Key. It was subsequently blown back out to sea by the overwash from Hurricane Wilma. The decomposition of the seagrass and other organic materials creates a significant odor that is not uncommon. That odor of decomposing material is well-recognized as being associated with Grassy Key. Areas along the shoreline of Grassy Key have been used by sea turtles for nesting. However, the nature of the substrate in the area of the Property is not optimal for nesting. Generally, sea turtles require a nesting site with 15 to 20 inches of sand above the water table so as to allow them to dig a suitably deep and dry cavity for their eggs. The natural substrate along the section of Grassy Key at issue is coarser and more difficult to dig into, and does not have the depth of sand for the best chance of a successful nest. Despite the nature of the substrate, Petitioner testified as to her observation of turtle nests along her property in each year from 2006 through 2010. Since the SW Groin, the Mid-bulkhead, and the NE Groin were all in existence and functioning during that period, with work to the SW Groin having been completed by 2008, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that those structures have no effect on the success or failure of sea turtles to nest along the property. To the extent nesting has been disrupted since 2011, the most logical inference that can be drawn from the evidence is that such disruption is the result of the Mid-Jetty Extension, which is slated for removal under the terms of the Permit. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the structures and activities authorized by the Permit will have no adverse effect on sea turtles. Hurricane Wilma In October, 2005, Grassy Key was pounded by Hurricane Wilma. The storm passed to the north, and created a substantial storm surge that moved from west to east across Grassy Key. The storm surge created a “ridge and runnel” effect on the Atlantic facing shoreline, with the channelization of the storm tide flow creating erosion and gullies on upland shore-adjacent properties. The storm surge and flooding across Grassy Key caused substantial wash-outs of sand; transported a large volume of sandy, upland sediments into the nearshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean; and created washover “fans” of material along the shoreline of Grassy Key. The effects of the Hurricane Wilma storm surge manifested just north of the Property, became substantial at the Property, and continued south down the shoreline for a considerable distance. At the Property, sand was pushed from 50 to 100 feet waterward from the existing shoreline, and a substantial runout was created running parallel and north of the SW Jetty. The sand pushed into the water buried everything in its path, including seagrasses. In short, the post-Wilma shoreline from the Property south along Grassy Key was left in a completely disrupted state. The nearshore waters fronting the properties owned by Petitioners and Applicants were affected by the deposition of sandy, upland sediments, which temporarily created areas of substantially harder-packed sediment. Over time, as the shoreline equilibrated and the sandy sediment distributed through a broader area, more typical shoreline conditions returned. The photographic evidence demonstrates that the Mid- bulkhead and the SW jetty structures were impacted by the Hurricane Wilma storm surge. In addition, the sandy area between the mid-bulkhead and the SW jetty was pushed seaward from its previous location. The scars from Hurricane Wilma remain evident through the most recent aerial photographs received in evidence. It is visually apparent that seagrass, though reappearing in patches, has not reestablished in the nearshore areas along the affected shoreline of Grassy Key -- including the areas in front of the Property and the property owned by Petitioners -- to the extent that it existed prior to the storm. Post-Wilma Activities When Hurricane Wilma hit, the Property was owned by Burgess Lea Levine. Not long after Hurricane Wilma, Ms. Levine shored up the SW Jetty, and performed work in the “beach” area between the mid-bulkhead and the SW jetty. The photographic evidence also supports a finding that the rock outline of the Mid-jetty was reestablished to its pre-Wilma configuration. The repairs to the SW Jetty resulted in a structure that is virtually indistinguishable in size and shape to the SW Jetty as it presently exists. The wrack line at the beach area after it was “worked” following the passage of Wilma, shows the area in which work was done to be generally consistent with -- though slightly seaward of -- the 2005 post-Wilma shoreline. In 2008, Ms. Levine applied for a series of exemptions and for consent of use for state-owned lands for “shoreline repair, replace earthen ramp with a concrete ramp, repair wood deck, replace mooring piles & maintenance dredge existing channel w/in Atlantic Ocean.” On September 19, 2008, the DEP issued a regulatory authorization and proprietary submerged land approval. The Rights of Affected Parties that accompanied the September 19, 2008, notice provided that “[t]his letter acknowledges that the proposed activity is exempt from ERP permitting requirements” and that “this determination shall expire after one year.” The notice of Rights of Affected Parties did not apply to the proprietary authorization. At some time after issuance of the regulatory authorization, Ms. Burgess initiated additional work to repair the SW Jetty. The photographic evidence, which is persuasive, indicates that the work on the SW Jetty, including the concrete cap, was complete by the end of 2008. When Applicants purchased the Property, the determination of exemption issued in 2008 had, by application of the notice of Rights of Affected Parties, expired. Shortly after the Applicants purchased the property, they had the existing family home demolished. Applicants intend to construct a winter vacation home for their personal use on the property. 2012 Storms In August and October 2012, Grassy Key was subject to event-driven conditions as a result of the passage of Hurricanes Isaac and Sandy. Those storms redistributed large areas of sediments that had been moved offshore by the effects of Hurricane Wilma. The Proposed Permit The February 20, 2013, Permit provides that the structures described herein do not require the issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit, subject to the criteria and conditions in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.051. The Permit provides that the boat ramp is eligible to use the general permit in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.417, the repair and replacement of the dock is exempt pursuant to section 403.813(1)(b), Florida Statutes, the maintenance dredging of the Channel is exempt pursuant to section 403.813(1)(f), and that the repair and replacement of the NW Jetty, the SW Jetty, and the Mid-bulkhead are exempt because the structures are “historic in nature and pre-dates Department regulations.” In addition to the regulatory authorizations, the Permit granted proprietary authorization by Letter of Consent for the dock pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 18- 21.005(1)(c)4., and for the Channel, the NW Jetty, the SW Jetty, and the Mid-bulkhead pursuant to rule 18-21.005(1)(c)7. The Permit established the mean high-water line as that existing in 1974 and depicted on the “Richmond Survey.” Proprietary authorization for the boat ramp was determined to be unnecessary due to its location above the mean high-water line. Finally, proprietary authorization for the “Sandy Area” or beach between the Mid-bulkhead and SW Jetty was granted by Letter of Consent pursuant to rule 18-21.005(1). On September 20, 2013, the DEP filed a Notice of Additional Grounds for Exemption Determination, in which it found each of the structures subject to the regulatory review to “have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on water resources” and to thus be exempt from the need to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit pursuant to section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes. On December 12, 2013, Applicants filed a Notice of Filing Proposed Changes to the Pending Agency Action in which they agreed to certain additional conditions, and which referenced the October 1, 2013, repeal of rule 40E-4.051, and its replacement by the “Statewide ERP rules.” For purposes of this de novo proceeding, the proposed Permit at issue includes the February 20, 2013, Permit; the September 20, 2013, Notice of Additional Grounds for Exemption Determination; and the December 12, 2013, Notice of Filing Proposed Changes to the Pending Agency Action. The Proposed Structures Groins There has been some confusion relating to the names of the structures that are subject to the proposed Permit. Two of the structures are referred to as jetties, the NE Jetty and the SW Jetty, and the middle structure is referred to as the Mid- bulkhead. A jetty is a navigation structure that is constructed at a barrier inlet. Its purpose is to stabilize the inlet and prevent shoaling by “jetting” current and wave-driven sand further offshore, such that the offshore bar is moved into deep enough water to allow navigation in and out of the tidal inlet, and allowing the tidal current between the ocean and the receiving body of water to keep the inlet scoured and open. There are 48 jetties on the open coast of Florida, none of which are in the Florida Keys. A groin is a structure designed for shore protection purposes. A groin is typically aligned perpendicular to the shoreline, or “shore normal.” The structures identified in the Permit as the NE Jetty and the SW Jetty are clearly groins, and not jetties. The mid-bulkhead is a groin, generally for shore confinement, with a channel-facing bulkhead. For purposes of continuity, the structures will be identified by the names given them in the Permit. Since there is negligible wave energy along the shoreline normal conditions, the groins have little or no day- to-day effect on longshore transport. Under storm conditions, the structures affect longshore transport, as evidenced by accretional “fillets,” and function as shoreline protection and confinement structures. The rock groins provide shelter, habitat and structure for corals, sponges, lobster, and fish in the area. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the groins authorized by the Permit will have no adverse effect on fish and wildlife resources. NE Jetty The NE Jetty was originally constructed in the early 1960s, likely concurrent with the dredging of the navigational channel. The quality of the aerial photographs of the period make it difficult to tell if the NE Jetty was a loosely-placed rock embankment or a more well-designed and constructed structure. However, the fillet of sand accreted to the north of the Channel demonstrates that the jetty was in existence and functioning as a shore-protection structure. By the 1970s, the NE Jetty had become overwhelmed by longshore sediment transport from the northeast. Sediment overtopped the NE Jetty and filled in the landward reaches of the Channel. At that point, ability of the NE Jetty to perform as a shore protection structure was compromised to the point that it could no longer hold the shoreline out of the basin or the landward portion of the Channel. The Mid-bulkhead became the dominant structural control over the shoreline and started to accrete the shoreline to the northeast. At some time between 1977 and 1981, the Channel was maintenance dredged pursuant to a permit issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation, DEP’s predecessor agency. The NE Jetty appeared on the plans for the maintenance dredging. Thus, the most reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence is that the NE Jetty was repaired and restored in conjunction with the approved maintenance dredging. By 1981, the NE Jetty had been restored as the dominant shore protection structure north of the Channel, and a fillet of accreted material had been reestablished. The aerial photographs from that period are not sufficiently distinct to determine the precise size, shape, and configuration of the NE Jetty at that time. However, there is no evidence of additional work having been performed on the NE Jetty between 1981 and 1985. By 1985, the NE Jetty existed in substantially the size, shape, and configuration as it existed at the time of Hurricane Wilma. Between 1981 and the 2005 arrival of Hurricane Wilma, the evidence is convincing that the NE Jetty was holding up the shoreline to the northeast and preventing sediment from filling in the upper reaches of the Channel. Although the evidence suggests that the NE Jetty had, by 2005, begun to show its age, the continuous presence of an accretional fillet demonstrates that it continued to serve its function as a shore-protection structure. Although the NE Jetty suffered damage from Hurricane Wilma, it continued to perform its shoreline protection function. Aerial photographs taken in 2009 and 2011 show a relatively distinct structure with a well-defined accretional fillet. Thus, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that, at the time of its repair in May 2011, the NE Jetty was a functional groin. The NE Jetty, as repaired in 2011, is of substantially the same size, shape, and location as the structure depicted in aerial photographs taken in 1985, 2009, and early 2011. Although the elevation of the structure was increased over its pre-repair elevation, the increase was that reasonably necessary to prevent the function of the structure from being compromised by the effects of age and weather. The work performed on the NE Jetty, consisting of new rock laid on top of the existing rock, constituted repair and maintenance of the existing structure. Since 2005, and at the present time, the shoreline north of the NE Jetty has reached a state of equilibrium and stability, and is not expected to change significantly from its current condition. The preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence demonstrates that the effect of the NE Jetty on the shoreline and water resources of Grassy Key in the vicinity of the properties owned by Applicants and Petitioners is minimal and insignificant. The sand and sediment accreted to the north of the NE Jetty since 1981 is in the range of 250 square feet. SW Jetty The aerial photographs from 19647/ demonstrate that some form of structure then existed at the location of the current SW Jetty. The structure is indistinct due to what appears to be sidecast material from a small channel in front of the property to the immediate south of the Property. By 1971, the SW Jetty had become more distinct. From that time forward, the SW Jetty, and its accompanying fillet of accreted material, appears in roughly the size and shape of the structure as it appeared immediately prior to the arrival of Hurricane Wilma. The SW Jetty was heavily impacted by Hurricane Wilma. The overwash from the storm created a substantial runout alongside the SW Jetty, and the post-storm aerials suggest that the jetty boulders were undermined and shifted from their more uniform 2003 appearance. Immediately after Hurricane Wilma, the owner of the Property commenced restoration and repair activities. As part of the activities, the SW Jetty was repaired with the addition of boulders, which were often three feet and every now and then as much as four feet across. The boulders, being irregularly shaped, could not be stacked like Legos®, so the repairs were not neatly within the precise pre-Wilma footprint. However, the repaired SW Jetty was substantially in the length and location as existed prior to Hurricane Wilma, though it may have had a slightly wider cross-section. By 2007, the work on the SW Jetty was complete, and it had assumed its present appearance with the addition of a concrete cap. Its appearance -- i.e. length, width, and location -- in 2007 and 2008 was not dissimilar from its appearance in 2003. As repaired, the SW Jetty effectively constitutes the same structure that it has been since its initial construction. From a coastal engineering perspective, the work that was performed on the SW Jetty, consisting generally of new rock laid on top of the existing rock, constituted repair and maintenance of the existing structure. Dr. Lin testified that between 1974 and 2011, the area to the southwest of the southwest jetty was “about equalized,” though it was “accreting a little bit.” Thus, the effect of the SW Jetty on the shoreline of Grassy Key in the vicinity of the properties owned by Applicants and Petitioners from 1974 to 2011 was minimal and insignificant. Dr. Lin testified that, since 2011, the same area had eroded. The only substantive shoreline change that logically accounts for that subsequent erosion is the Mid-bulkhead extension, which is slated for removal under the terms of the proposed Permit. Petitioner testified that she observed no adverse effects from activities on the Property until after February 2011.8/ Since work on the SW Jetty was complete by no later than 2008, Petitioner’s testimony supports a finding that the SW Jetty has had no measurable effect on the water resources in the vicinity of the properties owned by Applicants and Petitioners. The preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence demonstrates that the effect of the SW Jetty on the shoreline and water resources of Grassy Key in the vicinity of the properties owned by Applicants and Petitioners is minimal and insignificant. Mid-bulkhead The structure of the Mid-bulkhead first appeared as part of the sidecast material from the excavation of the navigation channel in 1964. It coalesced into a defined but smaller and more rudimentary structure in the 1971-1972 time period. At that time, it was acting as the predominant shore protection structure due to the overtopping of the NE Jetty with sediment, which also filled in the landward reaches of the Channel. By 1981, after the maintenance dredging of the Channel, the Mid-bulkhead had assumed substantially the size, shape, and location that it has currently. The Mid-bulkhead has a navigation function of protecting the landward extent of the Channel from the collapse of adjacent sand and sediment, and a shore protection and compartmentalization function. Those functions have been consistent since 1981. The Mid-bulkhead appears to have been subjected to the overwash of sand and sediment from Hurricane Wilma, though it maintained its shape and form. The outline of the Mid-bulkhead appears to be more well-defined after the initial post-Wilma repairs. In any event, the configuration and size of the Mid-bulkhead is substantially the same as it had been since 1981. At some point, the interior section of the Mid- bulkhead was topped with soil that is inconsistent with that naturally occurring in the area. That fill was confined, and brought the Mid-bulkhead to a more even grade with the rock outline, but could have had no measurable effect on the shoreline and water resources of Grassy Key in the vicinity of the properties owned by Applicants and Petitioners. The preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence demonstrates that the effect of the Mid-bulkhead is minimal and insignificant. Channel In 1961, the Department of the Army authorized dredging of a navigation channel at the Property. The approved channel was to be 700 feet long, 30 feet wide, and to a depth of five feet below mean low water. The Florida Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund issued a letter of no objection. By 1964, the Channel that is the subject of this proceeding had been dredged, though not to the 700-foot length approved. Rather, the Channel was dredged to a length of approximately 290 feet. Much, if not all of the dredge spoil was sidecast, creating a rock structure alongside the Channel. Measurements taken during the course of this proceeding demonstrate that the initial dredging resulted in near vertical side slopes, which shows that the bailing of the bedrock was accomplished to the limits. The width of the Channel is from 28 feet to 32 feet wide, which is within an acceptable tolerance of the 30-foot approved width. In 1976, the then-owner of the Property sought a permit from the DEP’s predecessor, the Department of Environmental Regulation, to maintenance dredge the Channel to a dimension of 290 feet long and 30 feet wide, to a depth of minus 8-feet mean high water, and to construct a new rock jetty to extend 230 feet waterward from the existing terminus of the NE Jetty. Given the mean tide range of 1.7 feet at the Property, the depth of the proposed dredging would have been minus 6.3 feet mean low water, or 1.3 feet deeper than originally approved. The permit drawings depict the existing NE Jetty, the Channel boundary, the outline of the Mid-bulkhead, and the sidecast rock structure alongside the southern side of the Channel. The permit was denied. In 1977, the owner of the property reapplied for a permit to maintenance dredge the Channel to a dimension of 290 feet long and 30 feet wide, and to a depth of minus 4.0 feet below mean low water nearshore to minus 6 feet below mean low water at the waterward end. The proposal to construct an extension of the NE Jetty was deleted. The permit was issued, and a severance fee for the dredged material was paid based on a projected 700 cubic yards of material removed. The permit drawings and photographs depict the existing NE Jetty, the nearshore Channel boundary, and the general outline of the Mid- bulkhead. By 1981, aerial photographs demonstrate that the maintenance dredging of the Channel was complete, the NE Jetty was in place and functioning to protect the shoreline as evidenced by the accretional fillet, and the Mid-bulkhead had assumed its approximate current shape and configuration. Although the Channel has varied in depth over the years since the maintenance dredging and Hurricane Wilma, the greater weight of the evidence, including photographic evidence, indicates that the Channel was well-defined and remained navigable during that period. The Channel is an open-water exposed channel. Water in the Channel mixes due to direct tidal flow and the sheet flow of water due to shear wind stress. As water passes over the Channel, it sets up gyre, which is a mixing process. The open- water exposed Channel is subject to a high degree of mixing, even on normal waveless conditions, because of the wind transport of water and the tidal transport of water. The Channel is not a semi-enclosed basin. A semi- enclosed basin does not receive the direct forcing functions that an open-water channel receives. A semi-enclosed basin has no direct connection to open waters, but is connected to open waters by a narrower opening. Although a semi-enclosed basin exchanges water via every tidal cycle, the flushing process is one of slow mixing, in which a little bit of water is added to and withdrawn from the larger basin through the narrow opening during each tidal cycle. In such a case, a flushing analysis may be necessary to determine how much time and how many tidal cycles it may take to effect a complete exchange of the water in the semi-enclosed basin, and thus, for example, to dilute a pollutant to an acceptable level. A flushing analysis is not needed in this case because the Channel is an open-water, openly-exposed location subject to a high degree of mixing under normal day-to-day tidal processes. There is no greater basin connected by a restricting connection as with a semi-enclosed basin. Rather, the Channel has direct exposure to the tides, along with wind shear stress moving the water. The evidence in this case is substantial and persuasive, because the Channel is highly exposed to the open water and the tides, and a well-mixed and well-flushed aquatic system, that a flushing analysis is neither required nor necessary. Dock The dock made its first obvious appearance in 1981. It appears in a consistent shape and appearance through 2011. Aerial photographs taken in 2012, after the maintenance dredging of the Channel was conducted, show the dock had been removed. At the time of the hearing, the Applicants had installed new pilings and vent boards for the replacement dock, but the decking had not been installed. Work to complete the replacement of the dock was halted due to the pendency of the litigation challenging the structures. The proposed dock is less than 500 square feet. It is proposed for non-commercial, recreational activities. It is the sole dock proposed on the Property. The proposed dock will not impede the flow of water or create a navigational hazard. Boat Ramp Since the issuance of the 2008 approval, the boat ramp site was graded and stabilized in limerock material. The concrete ramp was not completed due to the pendency of the litigation challenging the structures. However, Applicants propose to pave the ramp with concrete. Based on Mr. Clark’s observations during his site visits, the boat ramp is landward of the mean high waterline depicted on the survey. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the proposed boat ramp will provide access to the Channel, which provides a minimum navigational access of two feet below mean low water to the ramp. Applicants have agreed to install depth indicators at the ramp to identify the controlling depths of the navigational access. The work on the ramp involves no seagrass beds or coral communities. The ramp as proposed will require no more than 100 cubic yards of dredging. The total width of the ramp is to be 20 feet and the ramp surface will be no wider than 12 feet. Beach Area The area between the SW Jetty and the Mid-bulkhead is an accreted beach-type area that has been confined and protected by the Mid-bulkhead and the SW Jetty. The shoreline landward of the mean high water line, from the dry beach and to the upland, is somewhat steeper than adjacent unprotected shorelines, which is indicative of the grooming of the upper beach sediment and the stability of the shoreline between the Mid-bulkhead and the SW Jetty. As a result of the Hurricane Wilma storm surge, a substantial amount of sediment was swept across the Property and into the Atlantic waters. The beach area was inundated with sand and sediment from the overwash, which appears to have moved the shoreline well waterward of its previous position. Along the northern side of the SW Jetty, a substantial channelized gully was created. The configuration of the shoreline post-Wilma suggests that efforts were made by the then-owner of the Property to fill in the gully on the northern side of the SW Jetty, and to groom and restore the shoreline by redistributing sand and sediment on the Property. It is typical, and allowable under DEP emergency final orders, for affected property owners to redistribute overwashed deposits and place them back within the beach system. In that regard, the DEP encourages the redistribution of clean beach sand back onto the beach. The then-owners of the Property were not alone in taking steps to address the effects of Hurricane Wilma on their adjacent shorelines. The photographic evidence demonstrates that Petitioners engaged in similar restorative activities, which included bringing in material purchased from a contractor to fill in a gully created on their property by the overwash. Observation of representative soil samples from the beach area demonstrate that the soils are consistent with those in the upper beach areas found throughout the area. The only areas of inconsistent soils were found in the interior of the rock structure of the Mid-bulkhead, which contained a four to six-inch layer of soil with a different consistency and darker brown color, and small area of similar soil directly adjacent thereto and well above the mean high water line. The greater weight of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence demonstrates that there was no substantial amount of “fill” from off-site placed on or adjacent to the beach area. Rather, the nature, appearance, and composition of the soils suggests that the temporary increase in the size of the beach area after Hurricane Wilma was the result of grooming and redistribution of sand and sediment pushed onto the Property and into the nearshore waters by the Hurricane Wilma storm surge. In the years since Hurricane Wilma, the influence of normal tidal and weather-driven events has returned the beach area between the mid-bulkhead and the SW jetty to roughly the configuration that existed prior to the passage of Wilma, though it remains somewhat waterward of its pre-Wilma location.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the February 20, 2013, proposed Permit, as conditioned by Applicants’ December 12, 2013, Proposed Changes to the Pending Agency Action. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 25th day of July, 2014.
The Issue Did the Respondent, Charles W. Coxwell, Sr., excavate in statutorily- protected waters of the State of Florida in March of 1992, as alleged in the Department's Notice of Violation (NOV).
Findings Of Fact 1. In back of Respondent's house, on property owned by the Respondent, is a spring system where underground streams of water flow to the surface and out into an area formerly dominated by wetland plant species, to include: Fetterbush (Lyonia Iucida), Sweet Gallberry (Ilex Corjacea), and Sweet Bay Magnolia (Magnolia Virginiana). The stream continues over property owned by other persons, ultimately flowing into Grassy Lake which connects to Choctawhatchee Bay. All of this water is statutorily protected and within the regulatory jurisdiction created and assigned to the Department by the Legislature. In 1990, Respondent applied for a permit from the Department to construct a small impoundment where the springs flow out, on his property (and before the waters flow onto the property of other downstream landowners). The application form for the permit sought by Respondent in 1990 required him to list the adjoining landowner, who was, in fact, a Mr. Finch. Mr. Finch expressed his concern that an improperly built impoundment might be unsafe. The Department made a number of requests to Respondent for specific design specifications and drawings of the impoundment and its outfall structure. Respondent had discussions with Department staff in which he acknowledged that a permit was required; however, he declined to respond satisfactorily to the Department's "incompleteness requests" for additional information. Ultimately, the permit application was denied on May 16, 1991. Respondent did not pursue administrative remedies in the matter of the permit denial. In approximately March of 1992, Respondent caused 0.3 acres of the statutorily-protected waters and wetlands where the springs emerge behind his house to be excavated without the permit required by Florida law. Respondent knew that permits for such excavation were required by Florida law. The NOV assessed $404.51 (four hundred and four dollars and fifty-one cents) in enforcement costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the findings of the Department's Notice of Violation were proven by substantial and competent evidence, and it is RECOMMENDED that the Orders for Corrective Action set out in the Notice of Violation and restated below be made final: Respondent shall immediately cease and desist from either dredging and/or filling within waters of the State as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rules 17-4.022 and 17-312 prior to receiving the necessary permit form the Department or notice that the proposed activity is exempt from the permitting requirements of the Department. Within 30 days of the effective date of the Final order, Respondent shall reimburse the Department for expenses incurred in investigating the violation in the sum of $404.51. Payment shall be made by certified check, cashiers' check or money order submitted to the Department's Northwest District Office, 160 Governmental Center, Pensacola, Florida 32501-5794. See Exhibit 3 Attached. Within 60 days of the effective date of the Final Order, Respondent shall restore the excavated area as identified on the drawings attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The excavated material shall be regraded so as to re-establish pre-existing contours and elevations as indicated by the adjacent undisturbed areas. Respondent shall revegetate the restored site as identified in paragraph d below. Respondent shall stabilize the site as needed to retain sediment on- site during restoration. Respondent shall utilize turbidity control devices throughout the restoration including the use of staked filter cloths in the vegetated wetlands and floating screens where needed in the open waters. Within 15 days of the effective date of the Final Order, Respondent shall submit a planting plan and schedule to the Department for approval prior to revegetating the regraded site as identified in Exhibit 2. No work to revegetate the site shall be undertaken until the plan is approved by the Department. Respondent's plan shall address and institute measures necessary to insure successful revegetation. The restoration area shall be planted with indigenous tree species of no less than 2 feet in height, such as Fetterbush (Lyonia Iucida), Sweet Gallberry (Ilex Corjacea), and Sweet Bay Magnolia (Magnolia Virginiana). The trees shall be planted on ten (10) foot centers. Respondent shall implement the restoration plan within 10 days of Department approval. Upon completion of the restoration work required by paragraph c above, Respondent shall maintain the restored area as follows: the revegetation effort shall be considered successful if, after one year or one growing season - whichever is less, 80% of the revegetation effort yield values of less than 80%, then the unsuccessful areas shall be replanted to meet, at a minimum, the required percentage. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Richard L. Windsor, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Charles W. Coxwell, Sr. 1133 White Point Road Niceville, FL 32578
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
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00292 is for a consumptive use permit for one well located in the Green Swamp, Lake County. The water withdrawn is to be used for industrial purposes. The application seeks a total withdrawal of 3.642 million gallons per day average annual withdrawal and 5.112 million gallons maximum daily withdrawal. This withdrawal will be from one well and a dredge lake and constitutes in its entirety a new use. The consumptive use, as sought, does not exceed the water crop as defined by the district nor otherwise violate any of the requirements set forth in Subsections 16J-2.11(2) , (3) or (4), Florida Administrative Code. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of a permit with the following conditions: That the applicant shall install totalizing flowmeters of the propeller-driven type on the subject well. The applicant shall record the pumpage from the subject well on a weekly basis and submit a record of that pumpage to the district quarterly beginning on January 15, 1977. The permit shall expire on December 31, 1980. The procedural requirements of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto, have been complied with as they pertain to this application. The intended consumptive use appears to be a reasonable, beneficial use which is consistent with the public interest and will not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of the application.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that a consumptive water use permit in the amounts and manner sought for by the subject application be issued subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 3 above. ENTERED this 5th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Florida Rock Industries, Inc. Staff Attorney Post Office Box 4667 Southwest Florida Water Jacksonville, Florida Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates provided reasonable assurance that a modification to a conceptual surface water management permit complies with the permit criteria contained in statutes and rules.
Findings Of Fact Background This case involves a 900-acre parcel in the Loxahatchee Slough, west of the Florida Turnpike in Palm Beach County (County). Although the property occupies part of a slough, all of the wetlands in this case are isolated wetlands. Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates (Applicant) owns the south 503 acres, Petitioner owns the north 287 acres, and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (Village) owns the remaining 115 acres, which abut the southwest boundary of the north parcel. The acreages do not total 900 acres because the numbers are approximate. The 900-acre parcel is generally bounded on the south by Okeechobee Boulevard and the north and east by the M-1 canal. The west boundary of the south part of the parcel adjoins a residential development known as Loxahatchee Groves, and the 115-acre parcel adjoins a County-owned preserve of at least 600 acres. Applicant’s land is undeveloped except for some landclearing. Petitioner’s land is partly developed, mostly in the south next to the boundary with Applicant’s land. The Village's 115 acres are a preserve, divided equally between wetlands and uplands. On February 11, 1988, Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) issued surface water management (SWM) permit No. 50-00618-S-02 to Royal Palm Homes, Inc. for conceptual approval of a SWM system serving a residential development on the 900-acre parcel (1988 Permit). References to the Original Developer shall include Royal Palm Homes, Inc., its agents, lenders, and assigns, except for Petitioner and Applicant. The permitted development, which was known as the Royal Palm Homes PUD, comprises single-family and multifamily residences, wetland preserve areas, two 18-hole golf courses, and a park area. On August 3, 1994, Applicant filed SWM application number 940803-6 to modify the 1988 Permit to show the change in ownership and obtain conceptual approval of a modification to the permitted SWM system. The application was not complete when the new Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules replaced the old Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) permit rules. On May 24, 1996, the District transmitted the staff report, which proposed the issuance of a permit modification. On June 13, 1996, the District approved the issuance of the proposed permit modification. On the same date, Petitioner filed its petition challenging the proposed agency action. Permits The first relevant SWM permit for the 900-acre parcel involved a larger parcel that includes the 900-acre parcel. On September 14, 1978, the District issued a two-page permit authorizing the “construction of a water management system serving 2073 acres of residential lands by waterways discharging into canal C-51.” This 1978 permit, which is identified as number 50-00618-S, contains a special condition calling for a minimum finished floor elevation of 18.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The next permit is the 1988 Permit, which is a substantial modification to the 1978 permit. The 1988 Permit covers only the previously described 900 acres and, as modified, currently remains in effect. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of two large wetlands in the north parcel, just north of the 115-acre preserve; one wetland is about 30 acres and the other is about ten acres. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of no other wetlands in the north parcel, but, in addition to the wetlands in the 115-acre preserve, the 1988 Permit requires the preservation of several much smaller wetlands in the south parcel. The staff report for the 1988 Permit divides into three basins the drainage area for the 900-acre parcel: a north basin of 98.9 acres, a central basin of 525.7 acres, and a south basin of 270.8 acres. The staff report states that basin runoff will pass through a system of inlets and culverts into a series of interconnected lakes, from which, through control structures, the runoff will pass into the M-1 canal and eventually into the C-51 canal. The staff report notes that the control elevations will be 17.25 feet NGVD for the north basin, 17.55 feet NGVD for the central basin, and 17.75 feet NGVD for the south basin. Under the discussion of environmental impacts, the staff report observes that the 1978 permit proposed for protection only 30 acres of wetlands among the 281 acres of isolated wetlands on the site. The staff report notes that “extensive” melaleuca invasion has taken place since the 1978 permit and only 160 acres of wetlands remain in “relatively good” condition, with much of this subject to melaleuca encroachment. Due to the “extensive seed source” and “seasonal drying of the wetlands,” the staff report predicts eventual melaleuca dominance of the “entire site.” The staff report asserts that the proposed development plan includes the protection of about 100 acres of the “best quality wetlands,” plus eight acres of wetlands created in conjunction with the golf courses and 15 acres of wetlands created as littoral zones in conjunction with the lakes to be constructed. The staff report calls a program “to eradicate all melaleuca from the site” “[t]he major environmental feature” of the proposed development plan. But this major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit is presently in jeopardy. One major component of the present case is that, following the conveyances of the three parcels by the Original Developer, the District has evidently concluded that no one is responsible to perform certain obligations under the 1988 Permit and no remedies are available for the nonperformance of these obligations. It appears that these conclusions are largely driven by the vagueness of the plan to eradicate the melaleuca. This plan is called the "Melaleuca Eradication Plan." The Melaleuca Eradication Plan is incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan, which is dated December 11, 1987, recounts that the Original Developer and regulatory bodies agreed that the melaleuca should be “eradicated and a program for this should be developed and included as a part of the permit application.” The plan states that the eradication plan will cover the entire 900- acre site with the Original Developer performing the “initial . . . program” on the entire site, including the 115-acre preserve to be deeded to the Village. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan calls for the Original Developer to create a bonded authority to conduct the “ten-year melaleuca eradication program.” The program is phased to coincide with the projected 10-year buildout of the 3000-unit parcel. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan describes in detail the three phases of the program and exactly how the Original Developer will proceed to remove the melaleuca and restore wetlands by planting native wetland species in disturbed areas. The plan promises a yearly inspection followed by hand-removal of any seedlings discovered on the site. This last phase will terminate ten years after commencement of the first phase. A “Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program” is also incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which is dated December 8, 1987, states that Dr. Dwight Goforth performed a wetlands survey of the 900-acre site in 1985 and divided wetlands into three categories based on their quality. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance promises the preservation of 112.71 acres of wetlands comprising 98.81 acres of “large wetlands totally preserved” and nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres that will be “partially preserved.” Also, the program will create golf course wetlands of 6.93 acres and littoral-zone wetlands around the lakes of 15 acres. Thus, the program summarizes, the “total wetland acreage preserved, enhanced and created will [be] 134.64 acres.” The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program describes a three-year monitoring program using transects to assist in the vegetative mapping of the site. The program also promises semiannual observations of birds, small rodents, and larger mammals using the wetlands and adjacent preserved uplands, as well as semiannual sampling for fish, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program outlines a plan to remove melaleuca and control algae buildup in the lakes. The program promises to contain algae through the use of “biological controls” and, when needed, hand-raking. The program also assures that the Original Developer will use a “conservative fertilization program” for the golf course and landscaped areas to reduce eutrophication in the created lakes. On February 18, 1988, the District issued its conceptual approval of the 1988 Permit. Among the special conditions of the 1988 Permit are Special Condition 15, which requires wetland monitoring and maintenance in accordance with the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, and Special Condition 16, which requires melaleuca removal in accordance with the Melaleuca Eradication Plan. Also, Special Condition 17 requires low berms around protected or created wetlands, including littoral zones, to protect against sheetflow runoff from the golf course or other areas of intense development. The references in the preceding paragraphs to the responsibilities of the "Original Developer" imply greater clarity than is present in the Melaleuca Eradication Plan or Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The passive voice predominates in both these documents, so it is sometimes difficult to determine on whom a particular responsibility falls. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan states clearly that "[the Original Developer] will conduct the initial melaleuca eradication on the entire site including the dedicated park area [i.e., the 115 acres]." The next sentence of the plan contemplates the conveyance of the 115 acres to the County. But, after these clear provisions, the Melaleuca Eradication Plan lapses into the passive voice almost invariably. The next two sentences read, "A bonded authority will be created to conduct the ten-year melaleuca eradication program" and "The eradication program will be carried out through a bonded agreement with the [Original] Developer to remove the melaleuca . . .." Alluding to the several phases of melaleuca eradication, the plan states only "[t]he eradication program will be completed in stages " Only two other sentences establishing responsibility for melaleuca eradication identify the responsible party. The end of the plan states that the "bonded authority responsible for initial eradication clearance will likewise provide a yearly inspection." One of the final sentences of the plan adds: "the bonding authority's crew will hand remove entire seedlings found on site." The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program is similar except that it does not once name the entity responsible for the monitoring and maintenance duties or hiring the firm or individual to conduct the actual work. The two special conditions incorporating these two documents likewise are in the passive voice, implying only that the responsibility belongs to the Original Developer. Given the vagueness of the melaleuca-eradication and wetlands-maintenance documents, it is not surprising that they fail entirely to address the issue whether these responsibilities run with the land, remain the responsibility of the Original Developer, or, for the eradication of melaleuca, remain the duty of the "bonded authority," if the Original Developer ever created such an entity, which appears highly doubtful. The documents likewise do not disclose the penalties for noncompliance. On June 16, 1988, the District issued a modification to the 1988 Permit for the construction and operation of a 110.9-acre residential development in Phase I, which occupies the central basin. On October 1, 1988, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) issued the Original Developer a permit to destroy 164 acres of wetlands on the 900-acre parcel. Special conditions of the 1988 Army Corps permit require the preservation of "115 acres of high quality wetlands," the creation of 18 acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral shelf, and the implementation of a "Melaleuca Eradication Program," which is the same program as is incorporated in the 1988 Permit. The 1988 Army Corps permit contains an attachment dated October 24, 1987. This attachment identifies the protected wetlands as the two large wetlands in the north parcel totaling about 40 acres, 58 acres in the 115-acre preserve, and 53.5 acres in the south parcel. The 1988 Army Corps permit protects several wetlands in the south parcel, including wetland numbers 14 (3.04 acres), 16 (1.6 acres), 23 (0.53 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 44 (0.8 acres), 29 (1.08 acres), and 46 (3.0 acres). These wetlands, which total 12.65 acres, are seven of the nine wetlands partially preserved in the 1988 Permit, although some of the acreages vary from those preserved in the 1988 Permit. Unlike the District's permits (except for the subject proposed permit modification), the 1988 Army Corps permit addresses conveyances by the developer. The 1988 Army Corps permit states: "If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization." Below the signature line of the 1988 Army Corps permit is language stating: When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below. On March 1, 1989, the Original Developer conveyed the 115-acre preserve to the Village, which later leased the preserve to the County. The Original Developer had not eradicated the melaleuca at the time of the conveyance, nor has anyone since done so. On August 17, 1990, water elevations in the wetlands in Phase I reached 19.4 feet NGVD, washing out construction pads, roads, and in-ground utilities. On September 7, 1990, the District issued a stop-work request because the SWM system was not working as required. On September 28, 1990, the District approved interim measures to preserve the wetland hydroperiod and allow for wetland overflow. These measures include berming the residential areas in Phase I/Plat I adjacent to wetlands. On June 13, 1991, the District approved additional modifications to the 1988 Permit and the construction and operations permit for Phase I and issued a conceptual approval for works in the north and central basins. The revisions to the conceptual approval include adding two control structures to the north wetland that connect to the water management system in the north basin and adding a berm around the smaller of the two preserved wetlands in the north parcel. The construction approval was for a perimeter berm along the south wetland and park areas. On June 24, 1992, the District issued a staff report recommending issuance of another modification of the 1988 Permit for the conceptual approval of a SWM system to serve the 900-acre parcel and approval of construction and operation of a SWM system to isolate and control the existing onsite wetlands and revise the control structure for the central basin. The staff report explains that this modification proposes berming the wetlands to the 100-year, three-day peak elevation. The staff report notes that the wetlands basin consists of 295.18 acres of wetlands, including 155.85 acres of “wetlands/uplands.” The staff report notes that the north basin contains 107.41 acres of “good quality wet prairie wetlands” with “minimal” melaleuca encroachment. The staff report restates that the purpose of the modification is to berm all of the wetlands and uplands not planned for development. Special Condition 19 requires the Original Developer to dedicate as conservation and common areas in deed restrictions the “wetland preservation/mitigation areas, upland buffer zones, and/or upland preservation areas," so that these areas are the “perpetual responsibility” of a named property owners’ association. Special Condition 22 states that “a wetland monitoring and maintenance program” and “a melaleuca eradication program” “shall be implemented,” but the condition does not expressly state by whom. Special Condition 22 requires that the work implementing these programs conform to these “approved environmental programs as outlined in the [1988 Permit].” Special Condition 25 provides that, on submittal of an application for construction approval in the south basin (Phase II), the "permittee shall submit a detailed wetland construction mitigation, monitoring and maintenance plan.” In evaluating the plan for approval, the District shall apply the “environmental criteria in effect at the time of construction permit application.” Although the approval of the District is not attached to the staff report, the District approved the June 24, 1992, staff report and proposed permit. The 1992 permit modification did not address the issue of who was responsible for melaleuca eradication after the sale of the property. On November 10, 1993, the staff report accompanying another request for a permit modification restates the special conditions of earlier permit modifications. Special Condition 23 restates the requirement that a melaleuca eradication program “shall be implemented,” again not stating by whom. Special Condition 23 now requires the completion of the melaleuca eradication program by February 25, 1994. The omission of a referenced exhibit to the permit from the exhibit filed in this case prevents a determination that this is the same as the Melaleuca Eradication Plan incorporated in the 1988 Permit and restated in the 1992 modification, although it probably is. In any event, Special Condition 23 concludes in another sentence lacking a stated or implied subject: “Maintenance of the preserved wetlands and berm planting areas shall be conducted in perpetuity to ensure that the conservation areas are maintained free from exotic vegetation (Brazilian pepper, Australian pine and melaleuca) . . ..” Although the record does not contain the written approval of the District to the staff report, the District approved the staff report dated November 10, 1993. On November 12, 1993, the Original Developer conveyed by special warranty deed the north to Petitioner. The deed is subject only to "easements, declarations, restrictions and reservations of record . . .." The record does not provide recording information for the deed. The Original Developer probably conveyed the south parcel to Applicant in the same fashion and at the same approximate time. Almost five months later, on March 29, 1994, the Army Corps issued another permit for the 900-acre parcel. Although the Original Developer had conveyed at least the north parcel, the Army Corps issued the 1994 permit to the Original Developer. The 1994 Army Corps permit authorizes the destruction of 158 acres. The general conditions governing transfers are the same as those in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The special conditions of the 1994 Army Corps permit require the permittee to preserve and enhance only 110 acres of high quality wetlands, instead of preserving 115 acres of such wetlands, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The 1994 Army Corps permit drops the requirement of creating eight acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral zone, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit, but requires the preservation of what appears to be the 39.5-acre preserve that is proposed by Applicant in the subject permit modification, as described below. Special Condition 3 of the 1994 Army Corps permit adds that all preserved areas "will be maintained in perpetuity free of Melaleuca. The permittee agrees to develop a bonded Melaleuca eradication program for the entire 906 acres. Copies of the bonded agreement will be provided to this office for approval before development can commence." The next permit activity affecting the 900-acre parcel is the subject application filed by Applicant on August 3, 1994, for its 503-acre parcel. On May 24, 1996, the District issued a staff report for conceptual approval of a SWM system proposed by Applicant for its 503-acre parcel. On June 13, 1996, the District issued an addendum to the staff report that contains another special condition that is not especially relevant to this case. In the background section, the staff report mentions the flooding of Phase I of the north parcel and states that the District had “assumed the adjacent wetlands would flow away from the development.” The staff report outlines the modifications implemented to eliminate the flooding; these modifications include connecting the M-1 canal, through inlets, with several wetlands located in the north and central basins. According to the staff report, Petitioner’s north parcel, which totals 287.34 acres, includes the Phase I/Plat 1 area, north basin, and part of central basin south of Phase I. Describing Applicant’s proposal, the staff report states that a preserve of 39.5 acres will be located in the northwest corner of the south parcel, adjoining the east boundary of the 115-acre parcel. The staff report states that the 39.5-acre preserve will sheetflow through cuts in the berm to wetlands in the 115-acre preserve. The 115-acre preserve is connected to the SWM system permitted on November 10, 1993, to eliminate flooding from these wetlands, whose control elevation is 19 feet NGVD. The staff report describes the south parcel as “dominated by flatwood habitat,” within which are stands of Australian pine and other exotic plant species that have recently been spreading across the site. The onsite wetlands are 4.93 acres of wet prairies, 18.4 acres of pond cypress strands, 1.56 acres of isolated marsh, 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwood, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca. The staff report finds that only the 4.93 acres of wet prairies and 18.4 acres of cypress are in good condition, but melaleuca has become established in many of the wet prairies. The 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes and 163.91 acres of melaleuca are in poor condition. The 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwoods are in fair condition. As for listed species, the staff report mentions only the possibility that herons might forage onsite during periods of standing water. Summarizing the impact of the proposed project on wetlands preservation, the staff report endorses the hydrologic reconnection of the 39.5-acre wetland/upland site with the 115-acre wetland. The staff report notes that water levels in the 115-acre preserve, which has been bermed to 21 feet NGVD, have stabilized at 19 feet NGVD. The staff report asserts that the “proposed wetland impacts (183.54 acres) were previously permitted under the conceptual permit application” for the original 1988 Permit. The staff report adds that this modification is to “change a portion of the original mitigation requirements . . . and includes impacts to a 6.78 acre wetland area that was previously permitted to be preserved.” But the staff report does not recommend the preservation of this wetland “[d]ue to the reduced hydrology and proximity to the proposed upland development” and the mitigation and compensation provided by the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report states that 8.76 acres of the 39.5- acre preserve are wetlands, and the remainder are uplands. As for the 8.76 acres of wetlands, the staff report lists 0.67 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods, 4.93 acres of wet prairies, and 3.16 acres of cypress. Applicant would also restore 4.95 acres of pine flatwoods. As for the 183.54 acres of wetlands to be destroyed, the staff report lists 2.83 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods in fair condition, 15.24 acres of cypress in fair condition, 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes in poor condition, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca in poor condition. Addressing the mitigation and monitoring elements of the current proposal, the staff report states that the modification would eliminate the creation of 15 acres of littoral wetlands around SWM lakes and 7.99 acres of marshes in golf courses in return for the creation of the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report assures that Applicant will perpetually manage and maintain the 115-acre preserve. Conceding that the 1988 Permit also required long-term maintenance of the 115-acre parcel, the staff report notes that the initial eradication effort was never completed. The staff report mentions an “access agreement” giving Applicant the authority to enter the 115-acre preserve for mitigation and monitoring, but “anticipat[es]” that Applicant will submit an application for another permit modification, on behalf of the two governmental entities, so that Applicant can “assume future maintenance responsibilities for this area.” As is clarified by the maintenance and monitoring plan, which is part of the proposed permit, Applicant's expectation is that the County and Village, not Applicant, will assume future maintenance responsibilities for the 115-acre preserve. The staff report concludes that the District should issue the permit subject to various conditions. Special Condition 1 is that the minimum building floor elevation is 20 feet NGVD. Special Condition 16 requires the implementation of a wetland mitigation program and requires Applicant to create 4.95 acres of marsh; restore 3.16 acres of cypress, 4.93 acres of marsh, and 0.67 acres of mixed forest; and protect 25.79 acres of uplands. Special Condition 17 sets performance criteria for the mitigation areas in terms of percentage and length of survival of vegetation. Special Condition 17 supplies completion dates for monitoring reports. Special Condition 21 addresses listed species. Noting that listed species have been seen onsite or the site contains suitable habitat for such species, Special Condition 21 requires Applicant to coordinate with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission or the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for guidance, recommendations, or permits to avoid impacts to such species. The monitoring and maintenance plan does not address direct and contingent liabilities for maintenance and generally is a poor candidate for enforcement. In addition to the vagueness of the passive voice, the plan is, at times, simply unreadable, as, for example, when it concludes boldly, but enigmatically: The site as a whole is evolving hydrologic trends which permits successional seres development toward communities with shorter hydroperiods and ultimately, toward more upland transitional and/or exotic species dominance of historically wetland habitats. Long-term prospectives infer that successional deflection has become a severe detriment for natural environmental control to alter the present scenario. Active management coupled with graduated balanced in hydrologic restoration and created habitat elements will become the processes engineered to obtain an infusion of probabilities fashioned to inscribe a regenerative adaptation to the present site condition while fostering in situ processes, to optimize derived functions, for the maintenance of both habitat and wildlife over the long-term existence of the Preserve. (Sic.) Water Quality Impacts Petitioner does not contend in its proposed recommended order that the proposed project fails to meet applicable requirements regarding water quality. Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed permit modification would not violate State water quality standards. Flooding Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding water quantity and flooding. However, Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the project would not violate these requirements. There are several aspects to a SWM system. Undeveloped land stores and conveys rainfall through soil and surface storage. An artificial SWM system alters the undeveloped land’s storage capacity by the addition of a storage and drainage system, such as, in this case, conveying water through the soil into storm drains and then to lakes to store surface runoff prior to release, through an outfall structure, into a receiving body of water--in this case, the M-1 canal. The SWM system hastens the conveyance of stormwater runoff offsite. The control elevation of a SWM system is the height at which water in the lakes will flow through the outfall structure into the receiving body of water. Except during the dry season, the control elevation tends to establish not only the water level of the SWM lakes, but also of the nearby water table. The hastening of drainage offsite with the establishment of control elevations produce the drawdown effect of SWM systems. As to flooding, the basic underlying dispute between Petitioner and Respondents is whether to use the pre- or post- development depth to water table. In determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on wetlands, one would project the effect of any post-development drawdown on the wetlands themselves and their functions and inhabitants. It would be illogical not to do the same in determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on flooding. Pre-development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property is as little as two feet. Post- development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property will be five feet, which is the difference between the control elevation of 14 feet NGVD and ground elevation of 19 feet NGVD. Petitioner’s evidence concerning flooding is flawed because its expert witness based his calculations on an average depth to water table of two feet on Applicant’s property. He did not adjust for the considerable drawdown effect of the SWM system. The District table allows for no more than four feet between the water table and ground, so there is an added margin of safety in the ensuing flooding calculations. Another important factor in the flooding calculations is the soil type in terms of permeability. The District properly characterized the prevailing soils as flatwoods, and the soils onsite are in the category of “good drainage.” Applicant’s suggestion that flooding calculations use the post-development soils is rejected. Post-development depths to water table are used because they can be calculated to predict post-development conditions accurately. Applicant produced no proof that it would replace such massive amounts of soil from the site with more permeable soils so as to justify reclassifying the soil type. The District's flooding calculations probably overstate the risk of flooding in the three-day, 100-year design storm because they ignore lake bank storage, which is the additional amount of water that a lake can store in its sloped banks above the typical water elevation. The District could have relied on the effect of lake bank storage for additional assurance that the proposed project will not result in flooding. The proposed project contains a large number of long, narrow lakes, which will thus have a relatively high percentage of lake banks to lake area. Additionally, the District has raised the minimum floor elevation at this site by two feet over 18 years. Whatever other effects may follow from this trend, the higher floor elevation offers additional protection to onsite improvements. The flooding of Petitioner’s property seven years ago understandably is a matter of concern to Petitioner. Applicant proposes to change the configuration of drainage basins, but the District has adequately addressed the drainage issue, and this is not the first time in the 20-year permitting history of this property that the District has approved a reconfiguration of basins. Also, in the 1988 Permit, the District incorrectly projected the direction of runoff under certain conditions. However, the flooding was partly due to inadequate road- drainage facilities. Following the flooding, the Original Developer enlarged these features and bermed the flooding wetlands, so as to eliminate the flooding of developed areas due to design storm events. On balance, Applicant has proved that the proposed permit modification would not adversely affect flooding or water quantity. Environmental Impacts A. Wetlands Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding environmental impacts to wetlands. Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed work would not violate these requirements. There are two major deficiencies in the District's analysis of wetland impacts and mitigation or compensation. First, the proposed permit modification includes mitigation or compensation in the form of melaleuca removal. But prior permits have already required the same work, no one has ever done the work, and the District does not know if these permit requirements are still enforceable. Second, the proposed permit modification ignores 13.9 acres of preserved wetlands in the 1988 Permit, allowing their destruction without mitigation or compensation. The permitting process requires the District to balance the impacts of development and mitigation or compensation on the natural resources under the District's jurisdiction. Balancing these impacts in issuing the 1988 Permit, the District required the complete eradication of melaleuca in return for permitting the residential, institutional, and recreational development proposed by the Original Developer. District staff, not the Original Developer or Petitioner, called the Melaleuca Eradication Plan “the major environmental feature” of the development plan approved by the 1988 Permit. The major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit clearly justified significant development impacts on natural resources. To justify additional development impacts on natural resources, the District now proposes to count again another developer’s promise to eradicate the melaleuca. The District claims that the term of the original melaleuca protection plan was only ten years, not perpetual as is presently proposed. However, the District's claim ignores Special Condition 23 in the 1993 permit modification. This condition set a deadline of February 25, 1994, for the eradication of melaleuca and made perpetual the requirement that one or more of the potentially responsible parties--the Original Developer, Petitioner, Applicant, the bonded authority, the property owners' association, or transferees-- maintain the wetlands free of melaleuca and other exotics. Unfortunately, this “major environmental feature” of the 1988 Permit, as well as subsequent permit modifications, was so poorly drafted as to leave potentially responsible parties unsure of their legal obligations. The District tacitly suggests that it cannot enforce the obligations imposed by the 1988 Permits and later modifications for the eradication of melaleuca. But there is presently no reason for the District to resort again to permitting without first reviewing carefully its enforcement options. The District should first determine whether anyone will voluntarily assume these obligations. As a business consideration, Petitioner may choose to eradicate the melaleuca from the north parcel and 115-acre preserve to prevent Applicant from providing this service and claiming that it should receive compensation credit against additional environmental impacts permitted by a modification of the 1988 Permit. Maybe the County or Village has already budgeted funds for this work. If no party offers to perform the necessary work, the District must next determine its legal rights and the legal obligations of these parties. Depending on the results of this research, the District may need to consider litigation and the cessation of the issuance of construction and operation permits on the 900-acre parcel or either the north or south parcel. At this point, the District should discuss joint litigation or permit revocation with the Army Corps, whose 1994 permit requires the permittee to develop a bonded melaleuca-eradication program and apparently imposes on the permittee the responsibility to maintain all preserved areas free of melaleuca. Only after having exhausted these options may the District legitimately conclude that melaleuca eradication on any part of the 900 acres represents fair compensation for the development impacts on jurisdictional natural resources. The second major problem as to wetlands impacts concerns the calculation of wetlands acreages to be destroyed by the proposed permit. The 1988 Permit expressly incorporates the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. This program, as an operative part of the 1988 Permit, represents that the developer will “partially preserve. . .” nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres. The partial preservation of wetlands does not mean that a five-acre wetland will remain a five-acre wetland, except that its function will be impaired. Partial preservation means that, for instance, two acres of a five- acre wetland will be preserved. It is impossible for the District to have required mitigation to offset the destruction of these 13.9 acres of wetlands because the District denies that the 1988 Permit required the partial preservation of these nine wetlands. As noted below, neither the District nor Applicant can identify all of the wetlands that make up the 13.9 acres. Rather than account for these wetlands that were to have been partially preserved, the District instead contends that this undertaking by the Original Developer was ineffective or nonbinding because it was overriden by contrary statements in the staff report. Not so. The specific provisions delineating the preserved wetlands area in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was prepared by the Original Developer, override more general statements contained in the staff report accompanying the permit. There is not necessarily a conflict between the staff report and the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The staff report states that the plan “includes the protection of approximately 100 acres of the best quality wetlands,” together with the creation of eight acres of golf course wetlands and 15 acres of lake littoral zones. The plan “includes” these wetlands among those preserved or created; the word suggests that the list is not exhaustive, but only illustrative. Alternatively, if the list were exhaustive, the preservation of “approximately” 100 acres reasonably encompasses the 112.71 acres of partially or totally preserved wetlands cited in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. More to the point, on October 26, 1987, Donald Wisdom, the engineer handling the 1988 Permit, prepared a memorandum for the file stating that the total acreage of wetlands to be preserved or created was 134.45. This figure represents an insignificant deviation of 0.19 acres from the total listed in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was dated six weeks later, on December 8, 1987. In the October 26 memorandum, Mr. Wisdom describes the preserved wetlands as 111.46 acres of A- and B-quality wetlands. This is 1.25 acres less than the acreage in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. These small discrepancies were eliminated by November 18, 1987, when Mr. Wisdom wrote a memorandum noting that the program called for the total preservation of 98.81 acres and partial preservation of 13.9 acres. Adding the created wetlands, the new total for preserved or created wetlands was 134.64 acres. A month later, a District employee wrote a memorandum to the file, expressing his “main concern” that the proposed development would protect only 99 acres of wetlands. It is unclear why the employee mentioned only the 98.81 acres slated for preservation. Perhaps he was confused or mistaken. But the misgivings of a single employee do not constitute the rejection by the District of a developer's proposal to preserve nearly 14 acres of high-quality wetlands. The staff report for the 1988 Permit notes that the 900-acre site contained about 281 acres of wetlands. If the 1988 Permit required the preservation, as an entire wetland or part of a larger wetland, of 112 acres of wetlands, then the 1988 Permit allowed the destruction of 169 acres, which is consistent with the 164 and 158 acres allowed to be destroyed by the 1988 and 1994 Army Corps permits. However, by the 1996 permit modification, the staff report refers, without explanation or justification, to the permitted destruction of 183.54 acres of wetlands--evidently adding the 13.9 acres to the 169 acres previously permitted to be destroyed. Tab 13 of the Wisdom bluebook identifies the nine wetlands constituting the 13.9 acres, which are entirely in Applicant's south parcel. Except for three, all of these wetlands were characterized as A-quality, meaning that they are in good to excellent condition and “have not been stressed significantly from the biological viewpoint.” B-quality wetlands are in disturbed condition and “are in various stages of biological stress caused primarily by a lowered water table and/or melaleuca invasion.” C-quality wetlands are highly disturbed and “are substantially degraded biologically.” The 13.9 acres of wetlands comprise wetland numbers 23 (0.5 acres), 46 (0.4 acres), 44 (0.6 acres), 37 (0.4 acres), 29 (1.1 acres), 20 [sometimes misreported as 21] (3.9 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 16 (1.5 acres), and 14 (2.9 acres). Wetland numbers 46 and 29 are B-quality, and wetland number 20 is C-quality. The wetlands shown in District Exhibit 4 and Applicant Exhibit 3 inaccurately portray the wetlands constituting the missing 13.9 acres. A internal memorandum to the file notwithstanding, the District predicated the 1988 Permit in part on the preservation of 112.71 acres of functioning wetlands, including the 13.9 acres that the District now disclaims. The mitigation and compensation required of Applicant in the present case ignored the destruction of these wetlands. The District's analysis of mitigation and compensation in this case was fatally flawed by these two deficiencies. But more deficiencies exist in the District's analysis of wetland impacts. The District relied on faulty data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. Undercounting the extent of wetlands by at least 21 acres and their condition by an indeterminable amount, Applicant presented to the District a materially inaccurate picture of the wetland resources on the south parcel. Despite disclaimers to the contrary, the District relied on this inaccurate data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. There are possible problems with 39.5-acre preserve offered by Applicant. This parcel contains less than nine acres of wetlands, including two wetlands that Applicant may already be required to preserve under the 1994 Army Corps permit. At the same time, Applicant's proposal may include the destruction of a third wetland that is to be preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. The best rendering in the record of the 1994 Army Corps permit may be Applicant Exhibit 4, which shows eight large wetland areas to be “preserved/enhanced/created.” Two of these are the 10- and 30-acre wetlands on Petitioner’s property, which were preserved in the 1988 Permit. Three of the eight wetlands are in the 115-acre preserve; these were also preserved in the 1988 Permit. The remaining three wetlands to be preserved, enhanced, or created under the 1994 Army Corps permit are in the north end of Applicant’s property. It is difficult to estimate acreage given the scale of the drawing, but the two westerly wetlands are about 4-5 acres each and the easterly wetland is 3-3.5 acres. Subtracting the total preserved acreage of 110 from the acreage identified in the preceding paragraph, the total acreage of these remaining three wetlands is about 12. The two westerly wetlands are in the 39.5-acre preserve that Applicant offers as mitigation in the present case. According to Applicant Exhibit 6, the easterly wetland, or at least the most valuable part of it--the center--is slated for destruction if the District grants the subject permit modification. The proposed destruction of the third wetland is a matter of greater interest to the Army Corps than to the District, but the offer to preserve the other two wetlands really does not provide anything in return for the permitted development impacts because these two wetlands are already preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. As the District and Applicant contend, golf course marshes and littoral zones are typically of little environmental importance. Although the 1988 Permit addresses some of these problems, although without supplying any performance standards, golf courses themselves are often conduits of fertilizers and pesticides into the groundwater and nearby surface water. The District and Applicant justifiably question the value of the golf courses approved in the 1988 Permit as wildlife corridors. It is unclear what wildlife would use the corridor, which is surrounded by residential development and bounded by Okeechobee Boulevard. Other factors also militate in favor of Applicant's proposal. But, as the record presently stands, there is no way to find that Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed development and related mitigation and compensation, as described in the subject permit modification, meet the applicable criteria. The District substantially undervalued the environmental impacts of the proposed modification while substantially overvaluing the environmental impacts of Applicant's proposed contributions in the form of mitigation and compensation. To find adequate assurance as to wetland impacts in these circumstances, where the District did not perform an informed balancing of various impacts in a large-scale development, would permit the District to transform the unavoidably imprecise task of balancing wetland impacts into an act of pure, unreviewable discretion. Listed Species The only relevant listed species onsite is the gopher tortoise, which is a species of special concern. Gopher tortoises use the site to an undetermined extent. Applicant's suggestion that someone brought the tortoises to the site is rejected as improbable. However, due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant provided reasonable assurance as to the value of functions provided to wildlife and listed species by wetlands. Procedural Issues A. Standing Petitioner has standing due most obviously to flooding considerations. Additionally, the SWM system permitted in 1988 is for the entire 900-acre parcel, of which Petitioner’s parcel is a part. Applicability of ERP Rules The proposed permit modification would substantially affect water resources. The proposed permit modification would substantially increase the adverse effect on water resources. Requirement to Delineate Wetlands Due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant met applicable requirements concerning the delineation of wetlands. Improper Purpose Petitioner did not challenge the proposed permit modification for an improper purpose. Relevant Provisions of Basis of Review The District revised its Basis of Review after the adoption of ERP rules. Although the order concludes that the District should have applied the ERP rules, and thus the ERP Basis of Review, the order shall discuss both versions of the Basis of Review because the District ignored numerous provisions of both documents in approving Applicant's request for a permit modification. Section 4.6 MSSW Basis of Review requires the District to consider "actual impact" to the site by "considering the existing natural system as altered by the proposed project[,]" including "positive and negative environmental impacts." Section 4.6 requires the District to "balance" these impacts "to achieve a reasonable degree of protection for significant environmental features consistent with the overall protection of the water resources of the District." The proposed permit modification fails to comply with several provisions of Appendix 7 of the MSSW Basis of Review, such as Sections 4.2 requiring a detailed description of the isolated wetlands to be destroyed; 5.1.1(d) favoring the protection of isolated wetlands over their destruction, mitigation, and compensation, which are considered "only when there are no feasible project design alternatives"; and 5.1.6 prohibiting the alteration of water tables so as to affect adversely isolated wetlands. The proposed permit modification also violates various provisions of the ERP Basis of Review. Section 4.0 of the ERP Basis of Review sets the goal of permitting to be "no net loss in wetland . . . functions." Sections 4.2 and following generally require balancing. Section 4.2.1 predicates District approval on a showing that the SWM system does not cause a "net adverse impact on wetland functions . . . which is not offset by mitigation." The ERP provisions first require that the District "explore" with an applicant the minimization of impacts prior to considering mitigation. Section 4.2.2.4(c) specifically imposes monitoring requirements for SWM systems that "could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands." Sections 4.3.2.2 and following discuss mitigation ratios under the ERP Basis of Review. If the District can explicate a policy to count as mitigation wetlands acreage already preserved under Army Corps permits, the ratios in this case might warrant further consideration, assuming Applicant resubmits an application for permit modification. But it would be premature to consider the ratios on the present record for several reasons. The District has not proved such a policy. If such a policy counts such wetland acreage, on the theory that the District protects function and the Army Corps protects merely the wetland, the record is insufficiently developed as to the functions of the wetlands proposed for protection, as well as the functions of the 13.9 acres of wetlands proposed for destruction. Also, the District has not sufficiently explored project minimization, as is now required under the ERP Basis of Review.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order denying Applicant's request for a permit modification. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 13, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 13, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey D. Kneen John F. Mariani J. Barry Curtain Levy Kneen 1400 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ronald K. Kolins Thomas A. Sheehan, III Moyle Flanigan Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John J. Fumero Marcy I. LaHart Office of Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Samuel E. Poole, III Executive Director Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This controversy began on July 9, 1990, when petitioners, David and Victoria Page, filed an application with the district office of respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), seeking the issuance of a permit authorizing certain construction activities (including the erection of a seawall) on their residential lot located at 3108 Gulfwinds Circle, Hernando Beach, Florida. The property faces west on the Gulf of Mexico, a water body designated as a Class III water in the State. The application was eventually deemed to be complete on October 24, 1990. After conducting a review of the application and an on-site inspection of the property, on January 18, 1991, DER issued its notice of permit denial. The notice identified the reasons for the denial as being petitioners' failure to give reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated and that the project would be in the public interest. Also, DER cited expected adverse cumulative impacts if the application was granted. The notice provided further that if petitioners agreed to locate their seawall landward of the jurisdictional line, the project would be approved. In July 1991, petitioners amended their application to propose that the seawall be constructed even further seaward of the jurisdictional line. When efforts to resolve the case were unsuccessful, petitioners requested a formal hearing on January 17, 1992, to contest the agency's decision. Petitioners purchased their property in 1989. It lies within Unit 2 of Gulf Coast Retreats, a residential subdivision in Hernando Beach, Florida. The property is identified as lot 20 on Gulfwinds Circle and fronts the Little Pine Island Bay (Bay), which is a part of the Gulf of Mexico. Access to the Gulf is provided by a channel (six feet in depth) in the Bay in front of lot 20 and which eventually runs into the Gulf several miles south of petitioners' lot. It is undisputed that in 1985 Hurricane Elena passed offshore causing erosion to lot 20 and other adjacent lots. Consequently, the upland portion of the lot is now smaller than before the hurricane. However, petitioners purchased their property in that state of condition. Lots 19 and 21 are on the south and north sides of petitioners' property and are owned by the Steins and Budricks, respectively. Both neighbors have constructed vertical concrete seawalls in front of their homes. Budrick was issued a permit to construct a seawall on December 28, 1989, while Stein constructed his without a permit. However, Stein has subsequently filed an after-the-fact permit application and was recently advised by DER that the application was complete. At hearing, a DER representative expressed the view that the Stein application will probably be approved since his wall is landward of the DER jurisdictional line. It is noted that the Stein and Budrick seawalls sit back from the original property lines because of the erosion suffered during the 1985 hurricane and correspond to the jurisdictional line established by DER on their property. Another application for a permit to construct a seawall was filed by the owner of lot 18 in March 1992. Like Stein and Budrick, that owner proposed to construct his wall on the landward side of the jurisdictional line. Petitioners, who live in Kansas, desire to construct a home on their lot. They have proposed to place one hundred cubic yards of fill (limerock) on 1,065 square feet of intertidal wetlands on the western end of their lot and construct a 110-foot vertical seawall up to thirty feet seaward of the jurisdictional line. Thus, there will be dredge and filling activities in the Gulf of Mexico, a class III water of the state, thereby invoking the jurisdiction of DER. By law, DER is required to establish a jurisdictional line to show the landward extent of waters of this state, including the Gulf of Mexico. Such extent is normally defined by species of plants or soils which are characteristic of those areas subject to regular and periodic inundation by the waters of the state. As a general practice, using a prescribed plant or species indicator list, DER makes an on-site inspection of the property to determine what vegetation, if any, is found on the property and is subject to regular and periodic inundation by the waters. In this case, the dominant vegetation found on lot 20 was paspalum distichum, a plant on the species list subject to regular and periodic inundation by the Gulf waters. Accordingly, DER observed where the vegetation ended and used that point for the placement of the jurisdictional line. As a cross check, DER also noted the rack line, which is indicative of the landward extent to which the high tides rise, and found it to correspond to the vegetation line. It should be noted that the jurisdictional line established on petitioners' property corresponds with the line drawn on lots 18, 19 and 21, and if that line is used to construct the seawall on lot 20, the seawalls on all four lots would run in a straight line. Although petitioners objected to the jurisdictional line as established by DER, they offered no credible evidence to show that it was improper or should have been placed at a different location. On January 9 and 15, 1991, Richard W. Pugh, a DER field environmental specialist, conducted an on-site inspection of the property and adjacent waters. He also was responsible for establishing the jurisdictional line. Finding numerous adverse environmental effects that would occur if the permit was granted as proposed, Pugh recommended that the application be denied. This recommendation was accepted by the deputy assistant secretary for DER's Southwest District Office and a notice of permit denial was accordingly issued. The bases for the denial were that (a) reasonable assurances had not been given by petitioners that water quality standards would be satisfied; (b) a cumulative adverse impact on the area would occur if the permit was approved, and (c) petitioners had failed to give reasonable assurances that the project was in the public interest. In order to prove entitlement to a permit, petitioners must give reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is in the public interest. In this respect, they offered no evidence to provide these assurances. This in itself supports a finding that no entitlement to a permit has been shown. Even so, the agency elected to present evidence on these issues after petitioners' case-in-chief was concluded. Findings of fact drawn from that evidence are set forth below. On April 6, 1992, a DER marine biologist, Dr. George H. Farrell, visited the site and conducted a biological evaluation of the composition of the benthic community in the intertidal and subtidal wetlands which would be impacted by the project. Based on his tests and observations, Dr. Farrell concluded that the project as proposed would have an adverse impact on marine and wildlife resources in the area. This is because the area has very good water quality, contains a high species diversity, performs an integral part in the food web, and serves a valuable nursery function for estuarine dependent juvenile fish species and a corridor function for migrating estuarine dependent fish species. This testimony was not challenged by petitioners and is hereby accepted. 1/ In granting or denying a water resource permit, DER is also required to consider certain statutory criteria found in Subsection 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, to determine whether a project is in the public interest. Although petitioners did not address these criteria, and thus failed to give any assurances that the project is in the public interest as required by law, testimony adduced by DER established that under petitioners' proposal, there will be a permanent loss of 1,065 square feet of intertidal wetlands due to filling activities. These wetlands are now used by fish and wildlife habitat and will no longer be available for use. In addition, the same area is used as a nursery area by a variety of fish species. As such, the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats and will adversely affect the fishing values and marine productivity in the vicinity. Second, because petitioners' proposed seawall will jut out from their neighbors' walls by as much as thirty feet, and the corners of the seawall in that configuration will result in erosion or shoaling depending on whether the waters are moving north or south, the project will cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Third, because the wall is being constructed of concrete and steel and is not temporary, the project will be of a permanent nature and thus have a permanent adverse impact. Finally, the ecological functions being performed in the immediate vicinity of the project are extremely important and the elimination of this zone will significantly impair those functions. Collectively, these considerations support a finding that the project is not in the public interest. DER has a policy of not granting a permit if adverse cumulative impacts may be expected as a result of granting that permit. This policy is derived from a statute (s. 403.919, F.S.) requiring such impacts to be considered in the permitting process. In the case at bar, DER reasonably predicts that if it granted petitioners' application and authorized them to construct a seawall which jutted out up to thirty feet beyond their neighbors' walls, it would be obligated to grant similar permits to property owners on adjacent lots. Because petitioners' application will have an adverse impact on the water quality and is contrary to the public interest, the granting of additional permits would exacerbate those impacts. When an applicant proposes to fill (destroy) wetlands, and the applicant is unable to meet the public interest criteria set forth in subsection 403.918(2), DER shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate the adverse effects caused by the project. In this case, no mitigative measures were proposed by petitioners. At hearing, petitioners' representative asserted that in June 1991, the Cabinet (presumably sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund) implemented a new "policy" which allows property owners to "recover and bulkhead" land previously lost due to avulsion and erosion. He further represented that such requests were to be filed within five years after the event (hurricane). Although petitioners were not the property owners when the event occurred, and more than five years has elapsed, in July 1991 petitioners filed a request with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to reclaim and bulkhead their property and that request remained pending as of the date of hearing. A copy of the policy itself (or rule, if any, implementing the policy) was not made a part of this record. Even so, there was no evidence to establish that the granting of that application would require DER to grant a water resource permit, and DER takes the position that the request has no bearing on the issue of whether a water resource permit should be issued to petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying petitioners' application for a water resource permit. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 27th day of April, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility to administer the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Petitioner has the authority to appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission any development order issued in an area of critical state concern. Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and is responsible for issuing development orders for development in Monroe County. Monroe County issued the development order that is the subject of this appeal. Respondent, Bruce Schmitt, is the owner of real property known as Section 15, Township 66, Range 32, Sombrero Beach Road and Tingler Lane - 88 Tingler Lane, Vaca Key Bright, Florida. Most of Monroe County, including the subject property, is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, as designated under Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. On May 25, 1993, Monroe County issued building permit number 9320003962 to Bruce A. Schmitt, Owner, and Marathon Woodworking, General Contractor, authorizing the construction of a 4 feet X 140 feet wooden dock with a 4 feet x 40 feet terminus. The site of the permitted dock is on an open water shoreline. Running parallel to this shoreline is a channel that is greater than four feet in depth at mean low tide and is greater than twenty feet in width. The permitted dock will terminate at the edge of that channel in an area that is at least four feet deep at mean low tide and more than 20 feet in width. There are no hard coral bottoms found in the area where the dock will terminate. In the vicinity where Mr. Schmitt proposes to construct his dock, there is a channel that is perpendicular to the shoreline that intersects with the channel that is parallel to the shoreline. This perpendicular channel leads out to deep water. The channel providing access to deep water crosses an area of shallow water, which is an area of flats that is referred to by the Department as a shoal. The water depth of this area at mean low tide ranges between 3.0 and 3.5 feet. The channel running parallel to the shoreline and the channel leading out to deep water are not marked. Boats that use this area traditionally have used the channel that is parallel to the shoreline to access the channel in front of Mr. Schmitt's property that leads to deep water. These boats thereafter access deep water by crossing the area of flats that is referred to by the Department as a shoal. While it was established that boats cannot navigate around the shoal, the dimensions of the shoal were not established. Natural shallow water marine communities, such as seagrasses, exist in the waters in the navigation route for boats that will use the permitted dock. Sea grass beds play an important role in water quality maintenance in the Keys through filtration and nutrient uptake and serve as nursery habitats for fisheries. The cumulative impact of the operation of propeller- driven boats in the Keys results in damage and destruction to shallow water marine communities, such as sea grass beds, through prop dredging. There is evidence of considerable prop dredging of the sea grass beds in the shallow waters offshore of the subject property. Boats have been known to run aground in the flats off Mr. Schmitt's property. Any boat using the permitted dock will have to cross shallow waters with seagrass with water depths of less than four feet at mean low tide. Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes, Monroe County has adopted a comprehensive plan which complies with the Principles for Guiding Development found at Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes, requires Monroe County land development regulations to comply with certain principles for guiding development, including the following: (b) to protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, wetlands, fish and wildlife and their habitat. * * * (e) to limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys . . . Monroe County's Comprehensive Plan, which has been approved by the Department and by the Administration Commission, is implemented, in part, through its adopted land development regulations, codified in Chapters 6 and 9.5, Monroe County Code. Section 9.5-345(m) (2), Monroe County Code, provides as follows: (2) All structures on any submerged lands and mangroves shall be designed, located, and con- structed such that: * * * No structure shall be located on submerged land which is vegetated with seagrasses except as is necessary to reach waters at least four (4) feet below mean low levels for docking facilities; No docking facilities shall be developed at any site unless a minimum channel of twenty (20) feet in width where a mean low water depth of at least minus four (4) feet exists. Section 9.5-4(W-1), Monroe County Code, provides as follows: (W-1) "water at least four (4) feet below mean sea level at mean low tide" means locations that will not have a significant adverse impact on off- shore resources of particular importance. For the purposes of this definition, "off-shore resources of particular importance" shall mean hard coral bottoms, habitat of state or federal threatened and endangered species, shallow water areas with natural marine communities with depths at mean low tide of less than four (4) feet, and all designated aquatic preserves under Florida Statutes, Section 258.39 et seq. Section 2.104, Nearshore Waters, Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Volume II, Future Land Use Element, provides as follows: The Florida Keys are dependent on nearshore water quality for their environmental and economic integrity. The heart of the Florida Keys economy, the means by which Monroe County exists as a civil and social institution, is based on its unique oceanic character. If nearshore water quality is not maintained, then quality of life and the economy of Monroe County will be directly and immediately impacted. OBJECTIVES 1. To protect, maintain, and where appropriate, to improve the quality of nearshore waters in Monroe County. POLICIES 1. To prohibit land use that directly or indirectly degrades nearshore water quality. * * * To prohibit the development of water dependent facilities, including marinas, at locations that would involve significant degradation of the biological character of submerged lands. To limit the locations of water-dependent facilities at locations that will not have a significant adverse impact on off-shore resources of particular importance. For the purposes of this policy, off-shore resources of particular importance shall mean hard coral bottoms, habitat of state or federal threatened or endangered species, shallow water areas with natural marine communities with depths at mean low tide of less than four (4) feet, and all designated aquatic preserves under Florida Statutes, section 258.39 et seq. There are no channel markers to deep water in the area of the permitted dock that have been approved by the Department of Environmental Protection. There was a dispute in the evidence as to whether marking the channel that has served this area as the access route to deep waters would be appropriate and whether such marking would create a navigational hazard. The conflict in the evidence presented is resolved by concluding that the marking of the channel that serves as the navigation access route for boats that will use the permitted dock is appropriate, will aid navigation, and will not create a navigation hazard. This conclusion is reached, in part, because the channel is well defined by its long-term use and connects with the channel that is parallel to the shoreline at a known point.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order which conditionally denies Building Permit Number 9320003962, but which authorizes Monroe County to issue that permit once the access channel to deep water has been properly marked and approved by the Department of Environmental Protection. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 25th day of October, 1994.
