The Issue Whether Petitioner, Palafox, LLC (“Palafox”), is entitled to its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in its defense of the challenge to its Environmental Resource Permit (“Permit”) as raised in the Amended Petition in the underlying administrative matter, filed by Respondent, Carmen Diaz or her attorney, Jefferson M. Braswell, or both, pursuant to section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Palafox is a Florida limited liability company and was the applicant for the Permit in Case No. 19-5831. Palafox owns Lot 1, Block B, of the Palafox Preserve Subdivision, the six-acre property on which the Project will be developed. Ms. Diaz is the owner of Lot 18, Block A, of the Palafox Preserve Subdivision. Petitioner is a member of the Palafox Preserve Homeowners Association, Inc. (the “HOA”). The HOA is not a party to this litigation. The HOA has previously agreed not to challenge any permits sought by Palafox for the development of the project. Mr. Braswell is not a party to this matter. He represented Ms. Diaz through the Final Order issued by the District in Case No. 19-5831. Palafox’s Renewed Motion for Fees sought attorney’s fees and/or sanctions against Mr. Braswell for his role in that case, as allowed under section 120.569(2)(e). Ms. Diaz’s Challenge to the Project The Project consists of a 36-unit multi-family residential development proposed to be built on Lot 1, Block B, of the Palafox Preserve Subdivision. The Project encompasses approximately 2.68 acres of Lot 1, Block B. The Project lies adjacent to, and immediately west of, Martin Hurst Road and adjacent to, and immediately south of, Palafox Lane. The remainder of 2 Mr. Braswell also filed a Proposed Final Order and Amended Proposed Final Order, which were not authorized and have not been considered by the undersigned in preparing this Final Order. Mr. Braswell is not a party to this proceeding and did not become a party thereto by merely appearing at the final hearing to make some argument on his own behalf. He did not move to intervene in this proceeding, or otherwise obtain party status, not even by ore tenus motion at the Final Hearing. Mr. Braswell did not file a notice of appearance and did not attend the Final Hearing as counsel for Ms. Diaz. Furthermore, Mr. Braswell did not request permission to submit a Proposed Final Order. Palafox’s property runs to the west of the Project and south of Palafox Lane, and is located within a perpetual conservation easement. Ms. Diaz’s property is a residential lot located west of, and not adjacent to, Palafox’s property. An approximate nine-acre conservation easement owned by the HOA lies between Ms. Diaz’s property and Palafox’s property. A portion of Petitioner’s back yard is located within the conservation easement. Approximately seven acres within the conservation easement are wetlands. The conservation easement, including the wetlands, straddles the boundary between Block A and Block B, with about two-thirds in Block A, for the most part owned by the HOA, and one-third in Block B, wholly owned by Palafox. Palafox sought an environmental resource permit from the District to construct storm water management facilities (SWMFs) to serve the Project. The SWMFs to be authorized by that Permit are on Palafox’s property. Palafox’s property, the conservation easement and wetlands, and Ms. Diaz’s property, are all located within the same closed basin. This means that storm water within the basin will generally not flow out of the basin in all storm events up to, and including, a 100-year, 24-hour storm. On October 30, 2019, following the District’s notice of intent to issue the Permit, Ms. Diaz filed an Amended Petition for Formal Proceedings Before a Hearing Officer (“Amended Petition”). In the Amended Petition, Ms. Diaz challenged the District’s issuance of the Permit alleging that the Project will (1) have adverse water quantity impacts to adjacent lands; (2) cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site properties; (3) cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; and (4) adversely impact the value and function of wetlands and other surface waters. She also alleged that the wetland had not been properly delineated previously, and that an older delineation was no longer valid. Specifically, Ms. Diaz alleged that the “proposed [storm water] system results in a massive change in the amount of storm water being discharged from the applicant’s site directly onto Petitioner’s property which leads to adverse impacts on her property.” On November 19, 2019, the Final Hearing was scheduled for February 19 and 20, 2020. Ms. Diaz was deposed on January 17, 2020, almost three months after filing her Petition, and two months after the Final Hearing date was set. The deposition revealed that Ms. Diaz was not the least bit informed of the Project. Ms. Diaz had not reviewed the Permit, and believed that the Permit authorized Palafox to build the Project, rather than the storm water treatment system. Ms. Diaz had not seen the site plans, had no understanding of what the Project would look like, and admitted she had done nothing to learn about the Project. In fact, Ms. Diaz testified repeatedly at her deposition that she simply does not want the Project built, regardless of whether it would actually impact her property or the wetlands, and regardless of what kind of development it is. She does not want Palafox’s property developed, in any capacity, and wants it to stay “the way it is now.” Ms. Diaz conducted no written discovery nor any depositions, and did not hire an expert until approximately one month before the final hearing. That expert, Mr. Carswell, had never visited the site. Although Mr. Carswell conducted a storm water analysis, Mr. Carswell conceded that Mr. Braswell prepared and sent him a ten-page report and asked him to consider it as Mr. Carswell’s opinion report. In reviewing and adopting that report, Mr. Carswell admitted that he did not do the type of analysis that he would have if he wanted to determine the incremental addition of storm water to a closed basin. Instead, he did a simple water balance equation. Mr. Carswell testified that he had never before used this type of analysis to support permitting for a storm water pond and that if he was going to try to predict the incremental contribution of storm water discharge from a project into a closed basin, he would utilize a model similar to the one submitted by Palafox in support of this Project. The undersigned found Mr. Carswell’s analysis was not a professionally-acceptable method for determining whether the Project met the standards for the Permit. In addition to Mr. Carswell, Petitioner offered the testimony of four other witnesses at the final hearing. None were able to offer any evidence that Palafox failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project: Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; Will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off- site property; Will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; and Will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. The testimony of two of those witnesses, Mr. Songer and Mr. Stinson, was in transcript form and was actually given in DOAH case No. 18-2734. In that case, neither witness’ testimony was accepted to defeat Palafox’s site plan approved under the more stringent permitting requirements of Leon County. See Braswell v. Palafox, LLC, Case No. 18-2734 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 31, 2018; Leon Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’s (Sept. 24, 2018)). The remainder of Ms. Diaz’s witnesses’ testimony was equally ineffective. Mark Cooper, the Project engineer, testified that the Project would raise the water level in the wetland by .04 feet in a 100 year, 24-hour storm event, which he classified as a negligible impact. Mr. Cooper’s testimony confirmed that of Palafox’s expert engineer, Mark Thomasson, who classified that increase as “de minimus.” Cheryl Poole, Ms. Diaz’s other witness and an engineer who worked on a prior project on the property, merely testified to conditions that existed a decade prior that are not relevant to the Project. In short, Ms. Diaz presented no credible evidence at all that the Project would negatively impact either the wetlands or her property. After the final hearing, the undersigned administrative law judge issued a Recommended Order, adopted in toto by the District, concluding that Ms. Diaz did not carry her burden to prove that Palafox failed to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not (a) cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; (b) cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; (c) cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; and (d) adversely impact the value and functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Mr. Braswell’s Prior Challenges to the Project Mr. Braswell has been involved in challenges to the Project for over five years. In those challenges, he has represented his parents, the HOA, Ms. Diaz, or some combination of those parties. In 2015, Mr. Braswell filed an administrative challenge on behalf of his parents—Wynona and Robert Braswell (the “Braswells”), who live in the Palafox subdivision and are members of the HOA. See Braswell v. Palafox, LLC (Fla. DOAH Case No. 15-1190). In that administrative challenge, the Braswells challenged Leon County’s approval of the Project site plan.3 The Braswells raised many of the same factual issues regarding the wetlands and storm water impacts that Mr. Braswell later raised again in Ms. Diaz’s challenge to the Permit. The Braswells also raised the issues that 3 Mr. Braswell admitted that when he filed that case, he “didn't know very much about the [P]roject,” “didn't know the rules” for Leon County’s site plan approval, and that he and his parents “didn't realize kind of what [they] were getting [them]selves into.” the Project violated a private covenant in the subdivision’s governing documents, which was beyond the Division’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, Palafox filed a civil suit for declaratory judgement to resolve that claim. In the interim, jurisdiction of Case No. 15-1190 was relinquished to the County without prejudice to refer it again to the Division should the civil suit not dispose of the issues raised in the administrative case. See Braswell v. Palafox, LLC, Case No. 15-1190 (Ord. Rel. Jsd. May 14, 2015). After an initial grant of summary judgment for the Braswells and a reversal by the First District Court of Appeal, the trial court entered a final judgment for Palafox. (Final Judgment, Evergreen Communities, Inc. v. Braswell, No. 2015-CA-000765 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. 2017)). After the civil suit was resolved, Mr. Braswell renewed his parents’ challenge to the site plan. See Braswell v. Palafox, LLC, Case No. 18-2734 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 31, 2018; Leon Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’s Sept. 25, 2018). As in the underlying Permit challenge, Mr. Braswell argued that the wetlands were not correctly delineated, and that the project would cause the wetland area to overflow and burden the “downstream” storm water facilities owned by the residential homeowners. While the County did not issue a storm water permit for the Project, approval of the site plan required a determination that the Project meets the County’s environmental code requirements. The County’s standard for volume control requires the runoff volume in excess of the pre-development runoff volume to be retained for all storm events up to a 100-year, 24-hour duration storm. That standard is more stringent than the District’s requirement to provide “reasonable assurances” that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; and will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. In the site plan challenge, the administrative law judge found that the Project was consistent with the Code requirements and specifically found as follows: the Project’s proposed storm water system will not significantly impact the conservation easement wetlands and will not cause flooding or other adverse impacts to downstream areas. no statute, ordinance, rule or regulation requires a wetland to be re-delineated after it has been identified and placed in perpetual preservation under a conservation easement and that the argument to the contrary “would lead to the absurd result of re-surveying and re- recording allegedly ‘perpetual’ conservation easements every time a lot was developed” within a plat. Id. at R.O. ¶¶ 37 & 51. In yet another case arising from this dispute, in 2016, Mr. Braswell’s father filed a formal complaint against the Project engineer with the Florida Board of Professional Engineers. Mr. Braswell submitted additional information in support of that proceeding. See In re Mark Cooper, P.E., Case No. 2016052464 (Fla. Bd. of Prof’l. Eng’rs Mar. 14, 2017). The Closing Order in that case found no probable cause of a violation by Palafox’s professional engineer related to the storm water system after the independent reviewer concluded that, based on the materials submitted by Petitioner’s counsel, “there should be no adverse surface water impacts to adjacent property” from the Project. Id. at ¶ 1. After the resolution of the civil suit and prior administrative challenges, Palafox, the HOA, and the Braswells entered into a settlement agreement. Under that agreement, the HOA and the Braswells agreed they would not challenge the Project any further, as long as it complied with the site plan that the County had approved. Mr. Braswell signed that agreement on behalf of his parents as attorney in fact. Palafox, believing that Ms. Diaz was bound by that settlement agreement as a member of the HOA, and that she had breached the agreement by filing the Amended Petition in the Permit challenge, filed a civil suit in Leon County Circuit Court. See Palafox, LLC v. Diaz, Case No. 2019-CA-002758 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct.). Mr. Braswell, representing Ms. Diaz in that suit as well, filed a counterclaim, subsequently voluntarily dismissed, in which he again raised the issues of the wetlands delineation and downstream flooding. (Def’s Ans. and Aff. Def. and Countersuit for Dec. Jdmt. at pp. 6-9). At no point between the resolution of the prior litigation regarding this Project and filing the Permit challenge did Mr. Braswell obtain new evidence or expert opinion to suggest that the Project would not meet the District’s more lenient standards for granting an environmental resource permit. Nor did he adduce evidence at hearing that would lead an administrative law judge to reach a different conclusion from Judge Ffolkes—that the project would not cause adverse impacts to downstream owners, that the Project would not adversely impact the wetlands, and that no new wetland delineation was required.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Ronald T. Hopwood is president of Last Resort Fish Camp Association, Inc. (hereafter "Association"), the owner of Big Pine Island located in Lake County, Florida. Big Pine Island consists of approximately 26 acres of land above the mean high watermark and 166 acres of submerged and transitional zone lands. The Association's property is more accurately described by the Department's exhibit III, Map C. Petitioner Milan M. Knor submitted to the Department a dredge and fill permit application, File No. 35-20062-4E, to dredge 7,350 plus-or-minus cubic yards of fill material waterward of the lien of ordinary high water and adjacent to the Petitioner's uplands (Department's Exhibit 12). It is proposed that the fill material or spoil be deposited on the landward side of a perimeter canal which presently exists along the southwest one-third of the island. When the project is complete, the canal will encircle the entire island, the fill material resulting therefrom will be deposited on the island side of the perimeter canal below a 59.5-foot elevation (Department's Exhibit III, Map A). During the dredging, turbidity curtains would be utilized. As part of the project, Petitioners propose to install two (2) 42-inch diameter culverts at the east and west ends of a causeway which connects Big Pine Island to the mainland (Department's Exhibit III, Map B). The purposes of the proposed project are to improve the water quality of the adjacent canals and wetlands, provide fire protection, reduce algae blooms, and stabilize bottom sediments (Petitioners' Exhibit A, Department's Exhibit 1). The elevation of 59.5 feet above mean sea level was established by the St. John's River Water Management District as the ordinary high water elevation of Lake Griffin. The desirable levels of Lake Griffin vary between 58.07 and 59.38 feet. A dredge and fill permit was issued fro this project by the St. John's River Water Management District. In its final order granting the permit, the Governing Board of the District found, inter alia, that the water quality of the district would not be significantly diminished by the channelization of the marsh, that the new culverts would increase the rate of flow and the flushing of the marsh by providing increased northerly access for the water flow, that the excavation would enhance navigability and flow through the interior canal, and that the channelization would promote fire protection. The Board believed that the installation of the culvers ". . . will provide a positive benefit to the marshlands by correcting the prior damming effect of the causeway " (Petitioner's Exhibit D). The permit was issued by the Governing Board over the recommendation of its staff to deny the permit (Department's Exhibit 16). On July 26, 1979, Mr. James Morgan, a filed inspector with the Department, conducted an on-site field inspection of the proposed project. Mr. Morgan complied an appraisal report, Department's Exhibit 11, which evaluated the feasibility of extending the existing 1,200-foot canal by approximately 3,000 feet. Mr. Morgan found that a portion of the area to be excavated, approximately 600 feet, was previously cleared and vegetated by arrowhead (Sagittaria, Sp.), paragrass (Panicum purpurascens), bloodroot (Lacnanthes caroliniana) and sawgrass. 1/ Standing water was present in portions of the previously cleared area. The remaining 2,400 feet were in a natural state, dominated by willows (Tudwigia peruviana), wax myrtles (Myrica ceriferia), arrowhead and sawgrass. Surface waters of the Oklawaha River and Lake Griffin were present in part of this area; however, at the time of the field evaluation, Lake Griffin's surface waters were depressed by approximately six (6) inches below its established ordinary high water elevation. Raising the lake's elevation to its high water elevation, 59.5 feet, would result in the entire project site being inundated with surface waters. Dip net samples yielded organisms which constitute the lowest levels of an aquatic food chain including amphipods, dragonfly naiads, diptera larvae and mosquito fish. Mr. Morgan's report concluded that ". . . [d]ue to the severity of the anticipated impact of the proposed canal construction, no environmentally acceptable modification is available other than to permit the system to function naturally. . . ." This conclusion was based on the following negative aspects of the project. The collecting and storing of organic materials in the canal which would reduce the dissolved oxygen level during biodegradation to lethal levels for fish and other aquatic organisms; The physical alteration and elimination of a natural wetland community; The increase in turbidity during excavation; and The placement of spoil below the controlled elevation of Lake Griffin which would reduce the lake and river flood storage capacity as well as the area capable of supporting healthy aquatic plant and animal life. It was recommended that the proposed culverts be installed and that one canal- front lot be utilized as a common lot for all property owners, thereby providing open water access to all property owners. Lake Griffin is presently in a highly eutrophic stated caused by large amounts of algae growth and weeds in the water column. Agricultural farming, municipal sewage treatment plants, and citrus processing plants are among the sources of nutrients causing the high algae growth. The construction of the causeway between the mainland and Big Pine Island in 1958 has prevented virtually any water from circulating between the marsh area and canal south of the causeway and the marsh area and canal north of the causeway. Due to this blockage of flow, lower dissolved oxygen levels and lower temperatures exist on the north side of the causeway. The south canal helps to maintain oxygen levels in the south marsh above concentrations considered critical to maintain aquatic life. The presence of the causeway has reduced the outflow of Lake Griffin by half, thereby increasing the residence time in the lake and promoting nutrient level buildup in the system. By increasing the water flow through the marsh surrounding the island, the quality of water entering the Oklawaha River from eutrophic Lake Griffin should be greatly improved. The marsh to the north of the causeway presently serves a vital purpose by removing nutrients and other deleterious substances from the water flowing from Lake Griffin into the Oklawaha River. The marsh community acts in a matter similar to the human kidney by filtering deleterious substances from the surface water. Biological productivity of the north marsh area is directly proportional to the amount of flow. This area presently experiences water movement caused by the control of water elevations in the Oklawaha chain of lakes by a series of control structures. This "backwater" effect, which is caused by movement in the Oklawaha, is not a sheet flow. If a sheet flow could be created, the marsh area directly north of the causeway, which is severely distressed, could be improved. A sheet flow northward could be created by the proper placement of adequate size culverts under the causeway and the completion of the canal. The canal could facilitate the flow of water northward by permitting water to overflow the canal bank on the north side. This would be caused by the effects of a hydraulic gradient which exists between the water level in the canal and the ordinary mean high water lever maintained by the St. John's River Water Management District. The hydraulic gradient would cause the canal to overflow its unobstructed north bank and travel northward through the marsh into the Oklawaha River. Water would be blocked by overflowing on the southeast side of the island because of an existing berm. In order to restore circulation, it would also be necessary to construct a series of culverts evenly distributed under the causeway. The two- culvert system proposed by the Petitioners would have a cosmetic effect and not significantly improve the natural water flow between the canals. If the flow through the highly distressed marsh to the north of the causeway could be improved through the proper placement of culverts and construction of a perimeter canal, the positive aspects of the project would outweigh the negative impact of the elimination of approximately six (6) acres of productive marshland. If steps are not taken to reverse the continuing degradation of the marsh directly north of the causeway, a large and valuable area of wetlands will be lost. Artificial conditions already exist due to the finger canal on the north side of the causeway and the causeway itself. The proposed filling of the island which is to occur below the 59.5- foot elevation will reduce the river's flood storage capacity and the area capable of supporting plan and animal life. The private benefit of placing the spoil from the dredging project on the island below the 59.5-foot elevation is outweighed by the negative impact associated with the elimination of a significant amount of low lying marshland. Adequate alternative means exist to provide fire protection to the residents of the island, and the filling of outlying marshes on the island is not necessary to accomplish this purpose. Petitioners have not been denied the use of their property either by the Department's denial of this permit or the granting of this permit with conditions. The existing lots are suitable for residential purposes, including that portion of the island below the 59.5-foot elevation which may be used for residential development by placing housing on pilings or poles.
Recommendation Therefore, it is recommended that the Department issue a permit to Petitioners to complete construction of a perimeter canal surrounding Big Pine Island subject to the following conditions: That the applicants install culverts or other similar structures of appropriate size to facilitate an adequate exchange of water between the canals on the north and south sides of the causeway. The number and size of the culverts or other structures will be determined by the Department. That the fill or spoil resulting from the dredging of the canal not be placed on Big Pine Island or any surrounding property at any elevation below 59.5 feet in elevation. That the applicants utilize equipment including, but not limited to, turbidity curtains to keep turbidity at a minimum during the dredging process. DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of August 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August 1980.
The Issue As stipulated by the parties, the issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the septic system sites in question are within 75 feet of "surface water", as defined by the law cited below and whether the actions and representations of Department personnel have created an estoppel against the Department from refusing to issue the subject permits.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Lagoon Oaks, Inc., is a Florida corporation. It is the developer of Lagoon Oaks, Eighth Edition, as shown on the plat in evidence, and is engaged in the business of developing the subdivision. It does not construct homes on individual lots. Instead, it sells the lots to home builders, who then construct the homes. Mr. Fred Webb, as President and sole stockholder of the Petitioner corporation and the owner of the lots for which the permit applications at issue in this proceeding were submitted. The applications for the permits concern Lots 31 and 32, Eighth Edition to North Lagoon Oaks, a subdivision located in Section 9, Township 4 South, Range 15 West, Bay County, Florida. The lots are located on Oakbrook Lane, in Panama City Beach, Florida. The Estoppel Issue Mr. Webb, the Petitioner's President, became concerned about difficulties in obtaining septic system permits for homes he proposed to construct on the subject lots. Consequently, he contacted Steve Lewis, Esquire to assist in resolving the permitting problem for the subdivision. Mr. Lewis began by visiting the lots himself. He then reviewed the applicable statutes and rules and contacted Mr. Eanix Poole, the Bureau Chief of the On-Site Sewage Treatment and Disposal Program for the Department in Tallahassee, Florida. Mr. Lewis requested a meeting with Mr. Poole at the site to view the property and attempt to resolve disputes regarding the permits. The meeting was held on or about March 29, 1994. Mr. Webb, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Poole, Mr. Mike Sarra, the program head for Bay County, Florida, and Mr. Shuster, who is a United States Department of Agriculture Soil Scientist, assigned to work with the Department on septic system issues, were present at the meeting. Mr. Sarra and Mr. Poole were present in their official capacities as representatives of the Department. During that meeting, Lots 29-33 were discussed. Mr. Webb was proposing to put mounded septic systems on the rear of the lots because of their relatively-low elevation in relation to the water table. The discussion involved the question of whether certain adjoining property behind Lots 29-33 was a "surface water", as defined in Section 381.0065(2)(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-6.042(47), Florida Administrative Code. The definitions contained in the statute and rule, respectively, are as follows: 'Surface water' means a recognizable body of water, including swamp or marsh areas, bayheads, cypress ponds and sloughs, and natural or constructed ponds contained within a recognizable boundary. This does not include retention or detention areas designed to contain standing or flowing water for less than 72 hours after a rainfall. Surface water - a recognizable body of water, including swamp or marsh areas, bayheads, cypress ponds, sloughs, and natural or con- structed ponds contained within a recognizable boundary. This does not include storm water retention or detention areas designed to contain dstanding or flowing water for less than 72 hours after a rainfall. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Webb contended that the area was not a surface water, and Mr. Poole and Mr. Sarra contended that it was. They opined that the proposed septic system sites were within 75 feet of what they deemed to be a surface water, precluding permit issuance. Photographs in evidence, as the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2, were taken shortly after that on-site meeting. They show that the area behind Lots 31 and 32 was, at that time, cleared of underbrush and was populated by a large number of pine trees. The photographs give no indication of a recognizable body of water, including a swamp or marsh area, bayhead or cypress pond or slough or a natural or constructed pond contained within a recognizable boundary. The testimony of Mr. McWilliams corroborates this. He found no recognizable boundary, no ordinary high-water mark, and found that the supposed "wet weather pond", as Mr. Poole described it, was, in reality, a parcel of "pine flat woods", comprised predominantly of a slash/pine canopy of mature pine trees from 60 to 80 years old. At the time of the site visit, which was after a significant rainfall the preceding night, there was little or no standing water behind the lots in question. Mr. Lewis saw very little standing water, and Mr. Poole does not recall any standing water. Nevertheless, Mr. Poole determined that the area behind the lots constituted a "wet weather pond", which he believed to be within the definition of "surface water". He described such a term as meaning an area where water is present at certain times of the year. Mr. Poole conceded that the term "wet weather pond" is not found within the definitions referenced above as a recognized "surface water". It is not a term describing a criteria for granting or denying a permit. No ordinary high-water line had been determined as of the time of this site visit, or later, concerning this alleged surface water. During the course of the meeting, it was suggested by Mr. Poole that if additional fill were placed immediately adjacent to Lots 29-33 in the areas behind those lots, then the problem of the "wet weather pond" would cease to exist, and the septic system permits could be issued. Mr. Webb protested this suggestion because the cost would be prohibitive. It would require him to place fill on property he did not own, and he was not sure that he could secure permission from the landowner to do so. He was reluctant to pursue such a settlement option on a problematic basis of obtaining permission from the adjoining landowner, when he really wanted to settle the matter with Mr. Sarra and Mr. Poole that day. He understood that they had the authority to settle the disputes, based upon their representations. During the discussion concerning placement of additional fill on the adjoining property, Mr. Webb brought up the fact that regardless of whether he put fill on those areas, the water would, because of the overall slope of the area, continue to drain across the areas which the Department had claimed constituted surface water. Upon discussion of this issue, Mr. Sarra and Mr. Poole concluded that such drainage would not pose an impediment to the issuance of permits, because with the addition of fill, the purported wet weather pond and, hence, "surface water" would no longer exist. The representations made by Mr. Poole and Mr. Sarra concerned the fact of whether the area in question adjoining the lots was a surface water and whether, if additional fill were placed on that adjoining property, the area would retain the alleged "wet weather pond" character. A representation was made by the Department, through Mr. Poole and Mr. Sarra, that if the additional fill were placed on the adjoining property, the question of whether it was a surface water within 75 feet of the proposed septic system site would become moot, and the Department would have no further reservation about issuing the permits. Mr. Poole was the Bureau Chief of the On-Site Sewage Program, and Mr. Sarra was the head of the Bay County Public Health Unit. By virtue of their positions with the agency, they were empowered to resolve such disputed issues. Mr. Poole testified that one of the functions of his position was to try to mediate disputes regarding permits and resolve the issues. Further, he and Mr. Sarra were perceived by Mr. Webb and Mr. Lewis, as his attorney, as having such authority. In any event, after voicing his objections concerning permission of the adjoining landowner, Mr. Webb ultimately agreed to try to secure permission to put the fill on the adjoining property. Following the meeting, Mr. Lewis wrote a confirming letter to Mr. Sarra. That letter is in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. A copy of that letter was also received by Mr. Poole. The letter confirmed the discussion that had taken place on the site with regard to Lots 29-33, concerning filling, as well as concerning other lots in the subdivision. Mr. Webb and Mr. Poole both testified that the letter accurately reflected the discussions which had taken place during the meeting. The letter clearly states that with regard to certain of the other lots in the subdivision, Lots 21-24, it was agreed that permitting was not possible at that time without further investigation of the situation regarding those lots. The letter was not an attempt to bind the agency to permit issuance concerning all of the lots under discussion. As to Lots 29-33, however, the letter confirms that Mr. Webb would attempt to follow the Department's suggested course of action and would attempt to secure permission to place fill on the adjoining property. He did not concede, however, that the area behind the lots was actually a surface water. No reply by Mr. Sarra or Mr. Poole or anyone else was made to Mr. Lewis' letter. No indications were given to Mr. Webb or Mr. Lewis, either orally or in writing, that despite the representations made on site during the meeting and despite the recitations in Mr. Lewis' letter, additional or more specific conditions were assumed by the Department. No hint was given that additional review would be required in order to issue the permits. Mr. Webb was able to secure permission from the adjoining landowner to place additional fill on the adjoining property. Because this operation entailed the mobilization of substantial equipment and personnel, the filling did not actually take place until sometime in October of 1994. During that period of time, Mr. Webb placed additional fill on Lots 29-33 themselves and approximately six inches to a foot of fill on the adjoining property behind the lots, in accordance with the Department's proposal. In addition, as part of the process, septic system sites for mounded septic systems were prepared in the rear of Lots 31 and 32. In the process of placing the fill, a "drainage way" was graded into the fill (a shallow, relatively-wide structure, similar to a swale in configuration) in order to accommodate the drainage of the water which was understood by the Department and the Petitioner to still require moving across the area. The six to twelve inches of fill was placed on the area in the rear of Lots 31-33, based upon the representations made by Mr. Poole and Mr. Sarra during the meeting which occurred. Mr. Webb spent approximately $25,300.00, of which $24,000.00 was for equipment and personnel time and approximately $1,300.00 was for the dump truck rental for placing the fill on Lots 29-33 in the area behind them and adjacent to them. He used equipment and personnel to obtain the fill off site, haul it to the edge of the borrow site, placed it on leased dump trucks, to transport it over public roads to the site, and used his own equipment and personnel to spread and grade the fill. He spent approximately $4,000.00 placing the fill on the adjacent property and approximately $5,000.00 was spent on each of Lots 31 and 32. The evidence clearly establishes that, but for the proposal of the Department during the site visit that Mr. Webb place fill on the adjoining property, in order to secure permit issuance, Mr. Webb would not have undertaken to expend the time, effort and money to place the fill on the adjoining property. In expending these resources, Mr. Webb relied upon the representations made by Department officials, Mr. Poole and Mr. Sarra, acting in their official capacities, regarding what he could do to make the sites permittable. Following his placement of the additional fill on the lots and on the adjoining property, a permit for an on-site septic system was applied for on Lot 33, which is immediately adjacent to Lots 31 and 32 and contiguous to the alleged "wet weather pond". The septic system on Lot 33, like that proposed for Lots 31 and 32, is located on the rear of the property near the property line, closest to the adjoining property which was filled. Lot 33 was one of the lots discussed in the on-site meeting as unpermittable prior to the fill being placed on the adjoining property. In accordance with the discussions on site and in partial fulfillment of the commitment made by the Department to issue permits if the filling was performed, a permit was granted for the system on Lot 33. Interestingly enough, the Lot 33 septic system site was shown by Mr. McWilliams to be only about 45 feet from the so-called "drainage way" described in his testimony, which the Department now maintains constitutes a "ditch", "stream", or other "surface water". This is its current basis to continue to deny the permits for Lots 31 and 32 as being less than 75 feet from such a supposed "surface water". The Department's Current Surface Water Issue In approximately December of 1994 or January of 1995, Mr. Sarra retired from his position with the Department. On August 1, 1995, Mr. Poole changed positions within the agency to become an administrator for the Department in Jefferson and Madison Counties. After their departures from their former positions, the Department changed its position regarding the issuance of these permits. On or about March 23, 1995, applications were made with the Department for the permits at issue in this case; and on May 19, 1995, a letter was written by Mr. Carl Darcy of the Department denying the permits. The denial letter makes reference to "numerous recent site visits". Mr. Darcy testified that he visited the site four times. The only indication of any site visits, other than his testimony, is a notation in the permit file, which states "surface water within 75 feet of site-March 20th through April 17th." Mr. Darcy testified that this notation indicated his site visits were between those dates, but he could not state the exact dates or times of day he visited the site and admitted that there was no notation in the permit file regarding any visits other than the two visits on March 20th and April 17th. In the course of his duties, in his position, Mr. Darcy makes approximately 35 to 60 such site visits in his district per month. He generally does not draw any diagrams which would serve to indicate the size, location, or distance of any surface waters from a proposed septic system site, as identified during the site visit. In this case, the permit file contains no diagrams, photographs, or other writing, except the notation described above, indicating the present size, location, or other physical or temporal attributes of the alleged surface water. There is no notation therein concerning the distance of the alleged surface water from the proposed sites, on the days he visited. The Department's records do not reflect whether it had rained the night before, or the week before his visit, the time of day, or the weather conditions at the site during his visit. The records do not indicate the location of any ordinary high-water line or recognizable boundary of the purported surface water. Mr. Darcy stated that he had, prior to hearing, obtained some rainfall data via telephone from a rainfall-collection station some two or three miles away. Mr. Darcy's testimony regarding site conditions he purportedly observed during his inspection visits are not corroborated by any notations or indications in the Department's permit file to document the visits and the antecedent conditions at the site or the conditions prevailing after the site visits. Thus, they can be of little weight, particularly in light of the number of site visits which Mr. Darcy typically makes in the course of his duties each month and the fact that he admitted that some of his site visits had not been documented in the permit file at all. He does not, as a matter of practice, make determinations of ordinary high-water line of surface waters in relation to proposed septic systems and did not do so in this case. Rather, he testified that he simply "walked out to the water and there it was." He testified that the Department has no method of determining an ordinary high-water line. Like Mr. Darcy, Mr. Hammons, an employee of the Department, also makes such site visits. He admitted that he has no training in how to perform ordinary high-water line surveys and did not make a determination of the "recognizable boundary" of the purported surface water in this instance. He did not make measurements of any distances of water he may have observed from the proposed septic system sites. Mr. Darcy testified that the Department interprets the provisions of Chapter 381 and related rules to mean that the presence of visible liquid water on the surface of the ground for greater than 72 hours may constitute a surface water. However, assuming arguendo that the "72-hour rule" is a valid interpretation and a basis for denying a permit, Mr. Darcy could not establish whether he had made any visits to the site which were at least 72 hours apart. Mr. Hammons testified that he had not made visits 72 hours or more apart for purposes of determining whether surface water he might have observed remained present. Neither Mr. Darcy nor Mr. Hammons had definite knowledge of actual conditions prevailing on the sites 72 hours prior to or after their site visits and, therefore, neither could state whether or how much it may have rained at the sites prior to their visits, how long any water was present prior to their site visits, or whether any water observed during their site visits still remained visible 72 hours after their visits. Mr. McWilliams was qualified to testify as an expert regarding the wetland or biological characteristics of the area alleged to be surface water by the Department; concerning whether surface water exists in the area in question; whether it has or may have an ordinary high-water line, as well as the process for determining ordinary high-water lines. The area immediately adjacent to and behind Lots 31 and 32 is characterized by a mature pine canopy. The pine trees are between 50 and 80 years old. The presence of these slash pines is inconsistent with the area being surface water, being regularly inundated or "normally wet". Slash pine grows in dry upland soils. Scattered amongst the pines is a mid-story of a number of sweetbay trees. Their number is relatively sparse, when compared to the slash pine and they do not constitute a portion of the canopy. Under the canopy, the areas of new fill have been densely colonized by a fairly large number of opportunistic herbaceous species, including rushes, sedges, and a few isolated, small pockets of cattail. There is a small excavated drainage way running through the area through which water has flowed in the past. The photographs, in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 5, show that this drainage way does not have a mucky bottom or other defining characteristics which clearly set its area apart from the other recently-filled areas, except, perhaps, a slight difference in elevation. Mr. McWilliams established that the area immediately behind and adjacent to Lots 31 and 32 is not a swamp, a bayhead, a cypress pond, a slough, a lake, a canal, a normally-wet drainage ditch, a retention area, or a stream. Indeed, even Mr. Darcy admitted that the alleged surface water he purported to find is not a swamp, a marsh, a bayhead, a cypress pond, a slough, a natural or constructed pond, a lake, a canal, or a retention area. Mr. Darcy was not sure if it constitutes a ditch and claimed that it constituted a stream. However, he also admitted, on cross-examination, that the stream does not flow at all times. This supports Mr. McWilliams' showing that during his visits, while there may have been some areas of standing water, there were no contiguous or continuous areas of flowing water which could constitute a stream. The actions of Mr. Webb, in placing fill on the adjacent property, have caused water, which drained across the property anyway, to drain in a more identifiable drainage way, which was left when his crews finished grading and spreading the fill and left a shallow, swale-like drainage way. The photographs in evidence (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5) of that adjacent property show merely a depression in sandy soil, through which water appears at some time to have flowed. No water was presently extant, as shown in the photographs. Both Mr. Darcy and Mr. Hammons conceded that each time they visited the site, the amount of water observed was different. Mr. Darcy testified that in order for an area to constitute a surface water at a particular point in time, water must be present, and he conceded that the alleged stream probably is not continuous at all times. In fact, there is no water body, stream, or otherwise on the adjoining property. Rather, the adjoining property serves as a drainage way for water from higher elevations. There is no evidence that the water, which has been observed by Department personnel, constitutes a surface water body, such that it has the characteristics of a recognizable body of water, including, but not limited to, a recognizable boundary or an ordinary high-water line. The Department has failed to follow its own rules, which dictate that an ordinary high-water line be established in order to properly evaluate a permit request. Mr. McWilliams demonstrated that based upon his extensive experience with ordinary high-water line surveys and his knowledge of conditions at this site, the alleged surface water on the adjoining property cannot have an ordinary high-water line. This is because the water, which may be found there intermittently from time to time, does not have the character of a recognizable body of water and is not a stream or other surface water. It is simply water draining from high ground across that parcel of property to a culvert, downgradient, on a temporary or intermittent basis. The concept of ordinary high-water line, therefore, does not apply to the subject property and site. In summary, the evidence demonstrates that there is no surface water, as defined in the statute and rules at issue, within 75 feet of the proposed septic system sites for which permits are sought.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services directing that the permits at issue in this proceeding be issued without further delay or the imposition of any additional conditions. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 8th day of March, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-4394 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-27. Accepted. 28-30. Accepted, in concept, but rejected as subordinate to the findings of fact made by the Hearing Officer, and to some extent, unnecessary. 31-32. Accepted. 33. Accepted, as modified by the Hearing Officer. 34-49. Accepted. Rejected, as unnecessary, irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as immaterial. Accepted. 6-7. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. 8. Accepted. 9-11. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. 14-15. Rejected, as not entirely in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 16-17. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence, in part, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter, and to some extent, irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee M. Killinger, Esquire Taylor, Brion, Buker and Greene 225 South Adams St., Ste. 250 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Thomas D. Koch, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monroe St., Ste. 126-A Tallahassee, FL 32399-2946 Sandy Coulter, Acting Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC, are entitled to issuance of a permit by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD or District) for the modification of a surface-water management system to serve the 24.1-acre World Dressage Complex in Wellington, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Charles Jacobs and Kimberly Jacobs are the owners of a residence at 2730 Polo Island Drive, Unit A-104, Wellington, Florida. The residence is used by the Jacobs on an annual basis, generally between October and Easter, which corresponds to the equestrian show season in Florida. Petitioners maintain their permanent address in Massachusetts. The District is a public corporation, existing by virtue of chapter 25270, Laws of Florida 1949. The District is responsible for administering chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, within its geographic boundaries. The District’s statutory duties include the regulation and management of water resources, including water quality and water supply, and the issuance of environmental resource permits. The Applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC, are Florida limited-liability companies with business operations in Wellington, Florida. The Applicants are the owners of four parcels of property, parts of which comprise the complete 24.1- acre proposed Complex, and upon which the surface-water management facilities that are the subject of the Permit are to be constructed. Contiguous holdings of the four Applicants in the area consist of approximately 35 additional acres, primarily to the north and west of the Complex. Acme Improvement District The Acme Improvement District was created in the 1950s as a special drainage district. At the time of its creation, the Acme Improvement District encompassed 18,200 acres of land. As a result of additions over the years, the Acme Improvement District currently consists of approximately 20,000 acres of land that constitutes the Village of Wellington, and includes the Complex property. On March 16, 1978, the District issued a Surface Water Management Permit, No. 50-00548-S, for the Acme Improvement District (1978 Acme Permit) that authorized the construction and operation of a surface-water management system, and established design guidelines for subsequent work as development occurred in the Acme Improvement District. The total area covered by the 1978 Acme Permit was divided into basins, with the dividing line being, generally, Pierson Road. Basin A was designed so that its interconnected canals and drainage features would discharge to the north into the C-51 Canal, while Basin B was designed so that its interconnected canals and drainage features would discharge to the south into the C-40 Borrow Canal. Water management activities taking place within the boundaries of the Acme Improvement District are done through modifications to the 1978 Acme Permit. Over the years, there have been literally hundreds of modifications to that permit. The Property The Complex property is in Basin A of the Acme Improvement District, as is the property owned by Petitioners. Prior to January 1978, the property that is proposed for the Complex consisted of farm fields. At some time between January, 1978 and December 18, 1979, a very narrow body of water was dredged from abandoned farm fields to create what has been referred to in the course of this proceeding as “Moose Lake.” During that same period, Polo Island was created, and property to the east and west of Polo Island was filled and graded to create polo fields. Polo Island is surrounded by Moose Lake. When it was created, Polo Island was filled to a higher elevation than the adjacent polo fields to give the residents a view of the polo matches. Petitioners’ residence has a finished floor elevation of 18.38 feet NGVD, which is more than three-quarters of a foot above the 100-year flood elevation of 17.5 feet NGVD established for Basin A. The Complex and Petitioner’s residence both front on Moose Lake. There are no physical barriers that separate that part of the Moose Lake fronting Petitioners’ residence from that part of Moose Lake into which the Complex’s surface-water management system is designed to discharge. Moose Lake discharges into canals that are part of the C-51 Basin drainage system. Discharges occur through an outfall at the south end of Moose Lake that directs water into the C-23 canal, and through an outfall at the east end of Moose Lake that directs water into the C-6 canal. There are no wetlands or surface water bodies located on the Complex property. 2005-2007 Basin Study and 2007 Acme Permit Material changes in the Acme Drainage District since 1978 affected the assumptions upon which the 1978 ACME Permit was issued. The material changes that occurred over the years formed the rationale for a series of detailed basin studies performed from 2005 through 2007. The basin studies, undertaken by the District and the Village of Wellington, analyzed and modeled the areas encompassed by the 1978 Acme Permit in light of existing improvements within the Acme Improvement District. The changes to Basin A and Basin B land uses identified by the basin studies became the new baseline conditions upon which the District and the Village of Wellington established criteria for developing and redeveloping property in the Wellington area, and resulted in the development of updated information and assumptions to be used in the ERP program. On November 15, 2007, as a result of the basin studies, the District accepted the new criteria and issued a modification of the standards established by the 1978 Acme Permit (2007 Acme Permit). For purposes relevant to this proceeding, the 2007 Acme Permit approved the implementation of the new Permit Criteria and Best Management Practices Manual for Works in the Village of Wellington.1/ The language of the 2007 Acme Permit is somewhat ambiguous, and portions could be read in isolation to apply only to land in Basin B of the Acme Improvement District. Mr. Waterhouse testified that the language of the permit tended to focus on Basin B because it contained significant tracts of undeveloped property, the land in Basin A having been essentially built-out. However, he stated that it was the District’s intent that the Permit Criteria and Best Management Practices Manual for Works in the Village of Wellington adopted by the 2007 Acme Permit was to apply to all development and redevelopment in the Acme Improvement District, and that the District had applied the permit in that manner since its issuance. Mr. Waterhouse’s testimony was credible, reflects the District’s intent and application of the permit, and is accepted. The Proposed Complex The Complex is proposed for construction on the two polo fields to the west of Polo Island, and properties immediately adjacent and contiguous thereto.2/ The Complex is designed to consist of a large covered arena; several open-air equestrian arenas; four 96-stall stables, with associated covered manure bins and covered horse washing facilities, located between the stables; an event tent; a raised concrete vendor deck for spectators, exhibitors, and vendors that encircles three or four of the rings; and various paved access roads, parking areas, and support structures. Of the 96 stalls per stable, twenty percent would reasonably be used for storing tack, feed, and similar items. The surface-water management system that is the subject of the application consists of inlets and catch basins, underground drainage structures, dry detention areas, swales for conveying overland flows, and exfiltration trenches for treatment of water prior to its discharge at three outfall points to Moose Lake. The horse-washing facilities are designed to tie into the Village of Wellington’s sanitary sewer system, by-passing the surface water management system. The Permit Application On May 18, 2011, two of the Applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC, and Polo Field One, LLC, applied for a modification to the 1978 Acme Improvement District permit to construct a surface-water management system to serve the proposed Complex. At the time of the initial application, the proposed Complex encompassed 20 acres. There were no permitted surface water management facilities within its boundaries. The Complex application included, along with structural elements, the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for handling manure, horse-wash water, and other equestrian waste on the property. Properties adjacent to the Complex, and under common ownership of one or more of the Applicants, have been routinely used for equestrian events, including temporary support activities for events on the Complex property. For example, properties to the north of the Complex owned by Far Niente Stables II, LLC, and Polo Field One, LLC, have been used for show-jumping events, derby events, and grand prix competitions, as well as parking and warm-up areas for derby events and for dressage events at the Complex. Except for an earthen mound associated with the derby and grand prix field north of the Complex, there has been no development on those adjacent properties, and no requirement for a stormwater management system to serve those properties. Thus, the adjacent properties are not encompassed by the Application. Permit Issuance On November 22, 2011, Permit No. 50-00548-S-203 was issued by the District to Far Niente Stables II, LLC. Polo Field One, LLC, though an applicant, was not identified as a permittee. On January 13, 2012, the District issued a “Correction to Permit No. 50-00548-S-203.” The only change to the Permit issued on November 22, 2011, was the addition of Polo Field One, LLC, as a permittee. On January 25, 2012, the Applicants submitted a request for a letter modification of the Permit to authorize construction of a 1,190-linear foot landscape berm along the eastern property boundary. On February 16, 2012, the District acknowledged the application for the berm modification, and requested additional information regarding an access road and cul-de-sac on the west side of the Complex that extended into property owned by others. On that same date, the Applicants provided additional information, including evidence of ownership, that added Stadium North, LLC and Stadium South, LLC, as permittees. On March 26, 2012, the District issued the proposed modification to Permit No. 50-00548-S-203. On November 15, 2012, the Applicants’ engineer prepared a revised set of plans that added 2.85 acres of property to the Complex. The property, referred to as Basin 5, provided an additional dry detention stormwater storage area. On or shortly after December 3, 2012, the Applicants submitted a final Addendum to Surface Water Management Calculations that accounted for the addition of Basin 5 and other changes to the Permit application that increased the size of the Complex from 20 acres to 24.1 acres. On December 18, 2012, the Applicants submitted final revisions to the BMPs in an Updated BMP Plan. On January 7, 2013, the District issued the final proposed modification to the permit. The modification consisted of the addition of Basin 5, the deletion of a provision of special condition 14 that conflicted with elements of the staff report, the Updated BMP Plan, the recognition of an enforcement proceeding for unauthorized construction of the linear berm and other unauthorized works, and changes to the Permit to conform with additional information submitted by the Applicants. The final permitted surface-water management system consists of inlets and catch basins, underground drainage structures, a 0.64-acre dry detention area, swales for conveying overland flows, and 959-linear feet of exfiltration trench. For purposes of this proceeding, the “Permit” that constitutes the proposed agency action consists of the initial November 22, 2011, Permit; the January 13, 2012, Correction; the March 26, 2012, letter modification; and the January 7, 2013 modification. Post-Permit Activities at the Complex Work began on the Complex on or about November 28, 2011. Work continued until stopped on April 18, 2012, pursuant to a District issued Consent Order and Cease and Desist. As of the date of the final hearing, the majority of the work had been completed. In late August, 2012, the Wellington area was affected by rains associated with Tropical Storm Isaac that exceeded the rainfall totals of a 100-year storm event. Water ponded in places in the Polo Island subdivision. That ponded water was the result of water falling directly on Polo Island, and may have been exacerbated by blockages of Polo Island drainage structures designed to discharge water from Polo Island to Moose Lake. No residences were flooded as a result of the Tropical Storm Isaac rain event. The only flooding issue related to water elevations in Moose Lake was water overflowing the entrance road, which is at a lower elevation. The road remained passable. Road flooding is generally contemplated in the design of stormwater management systems and does not suggest a failure of the applicable system. Permitting Standards Standards applicable to the Permit are contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)-(k), and in the District’s Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (BOR), which has been adopted by reference in rule 40E-4.091(1)(a). The parties stipulated that the standards in rules 40E-4.301(1)(d),(g) and (h) are not at issue in this proceeding. Permitting Standards - Water Quantity Those provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that pertain to water quantity, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; Will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property; Will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. In addition to the preceding rules, section 6.6 of the BOR, entitled “Flood Plain Encroachment,” provides that “[n]o net encroachment into the floodplain, between the average wet season water table and that encompassed by the 100-year event, which will adversely affect the existing rights of others, will be allowed.” Section 6.7 of the BOR, entitled “Historic Basin Storage,” provides that “[p]rovision must be made to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided by the project site.” The purpose of a pre-development versus post- development analysis is to ensure that, after development of a parcel of property, the property is capable of holding a volume of stormwater on-site that is the same or greater than that held in its pre-development condition. On-site storage includes surface storage and soil storage. Surface Storage Surface storage is calculated by determining the quantity of water stored on the surface of the site. Mr. Hall found no material errors in the Applicants’ calculations regarding surface storage. His concern was that the permitted surface storage, including the dry detention area added to the plans in December 2012, would not provide compensating water storage to account for the deficiencies he found in the soil storage calculations discussed herein. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants’ surface storage calculations are found to accurately assess the volume of stormwater that can be stored on the property without discharge to Moose Lake. Soil Storage Soil storage is water that is held between soil particles. Soil storage calculations take into consideration the soil type(s) and site-specific soil characteristics, including compaction. Soils on the Complex property consist of depressional soils. Such soils are less capable of storage than are sandier coastal soils. When compacted, the storage capacity of depressional soils is further reduced. The Applicants’ calculations indicated post- development storage on the Complex property to be 25.04 acre/feet. Mr. Hall’s post-development storage calculation of 25.03 acre/feet was substantively identical.3/ Thus, the evidence demonstrates the accuracy of Applicants’ post- development stormwater storage calculations. The Applicants’ calculations showed pre-development combined surface and soil storage capacity on the Property of 24.84 acre/feet. Mr. Hall calculated pre-development combined surface and soil storage, based upon presumed property conditions existing on March 16, 1978, of 35.12 acre/feet. Based on the foregoing, Mr. Hall concluded that the post-development storage capacity of the Complex had a deficit of 10.09 acre/feet of water as compared to the pre-development storage capacity of the Property, which he attributed to a deficiency in soil storage. The gist of Mr. Hall’s disagreement centered on the Applicants’ failure to consider the Complex’s pre-development condition as being farm fields, as they were at the time of issuance of the 1978 Acme Permit, and on the Applicants’ application of the 25-percent compaction rate for soils on the former polo fields. As applied to this case, the pre-development condition of the Complex as polo fields was a reasonable assumption for calculating soil storage, rather than the farm fields that existed in January 1978, and is consistent with the existing land uses identified in the 2005-2007 basin studies and 2007 Acme Permit. Given the use of the Complex property as polo fields, with the attendant filling, grading, rolling, mowing, horse traffic, parking, and other activities that occurred on the property over the years, the conclusion that the soils on the polo fields were compacted, and the application of the 25- percent compaction rate, was a reasonable assumption for calculating soil storage. Applying the Applicants’ assumptions regarding existing land uses for the Complex property, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that the proposed surface water management system will provide a total of 25.04-acre feet of combined soil and surface storage compared to pre-development soil and surface storage of 24.84-acre feet. Thus, the proposed Project will result in an increase of soil and surface storage over pre-development conditions, and will not cause or contribute to flooding or other issues related to water quantity.4/ Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the proposed surface-water management system will meet standards regarding water quantity established in rule 40E-4.301(1)(a), (b), and (c), and sections 6.6 and 6.7 of the BOR. Permitting Standards - Water Quality Those provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that pertain to water quality, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards . . . will be violated; Will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. Section 373.4142, entitled “[w]ater quality within stormwater treatment systems,” provides, in pertinent part, that: State surface water quality standards applicable to waters of the state . . . shall not apply within a stormwater management system which is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained for stormwater treatment Such inapplicability of state water quality standards shall be limited to that part of the stormwater management system located upstream of a manmade water control structure permitted, or approved under a noticed exemption, to retain or detain stormwater runoff in order to provide treatment of the stormwater . . . . Moose Lake is a component of a stormwater-management system that is located upstream of a manmade water control structure. The Permit application did not include a water quality monitoring plan, nor did the Permit require the Applicants to report on the water quality of Moose Lake. During October and November, 2012, Petitioners performed water quality sampling in Moose Lake in accordance with procedures that were sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of the results. The sampling showed phosphorus levels in Moose Lake of greater than 50 parts per billion (ppb).5/ That figure, though not a numeric standard applicable to surface waters, was determined to be significant by Petitioners because phosphorus may not exceed 50 ppb at the point at which the C-51 Canal discharges from the Acme Improvement District into the Everglades system. Notwithstanding the levels of phosphorus in Moose Lake, Mr. Swakon admitted that “the calculations that are in the application for water quality treatment are, in fact, met. They’ve satisfied the criteria that are in the book.” In response to the question of whether “[t]he water quality requirements in the Basis of Review . . . the half inch or one inch of runoff, the dry versus wet detention . . . complied with those water quality requirements,” he further testified “[i]t did.” Mr. Swakon expressed his belief that, despite Applicants’ compliance with the standards established for water quality treatment, a stricter standard should apply because the pollutant-loading potential of the Complex, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen from animal waste, is significantly different than a standard project, e.g., a parking lot. No authority for requiring such additional non-rule standards was provided. The evidence demonstrates that the Applicants provided reasonable assurances that all applicable stormwater management system standards that pertain to water treatment and water quality were met. Permitting Standards - Design Features and BMPs Provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that constitute more general concerns regarding the design of the Complex, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed. Petitioners alleged that certain deficiencies in the Complex design and BMPs compromise the ability of the stormwater management system to be operated and function as proposed. Design Features Petitioners expressed concern that the manure bin, though roofed, had walls that did not extend to the roofline, thus allowing rain to enter. Photographs received in evidence suggest that the walls extend to a height of approximately six feet, with an opening of approximately two feet to the roof line. The plan detail sheet shows a roof overhang, though it was not scaled. Regardless, the slab is graded to the center so that it will collect any water that does enter through the openings. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the manure bins are sufficient to prevent uncontrolled releases of animal waste to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Petitioners suggested that the horse-washing facilities, which discharge to a sanitary sewer system rather than to the stormwater management facility, are inadequate for the number of horses expected to use the wash facilities. Petitioners opined that the inadequacy of the wash facilities would lead to washing being done outside of the facilities, and to the resulting waste and wash water entering the stormwater management system. Petitioners provided no basis for the supposition other than speculation. Mr. Stone testified that the horse-washing facilities are adequate to handle the horses boarded at the stables and those horses that would reasonably be expected to use the facility during events. His testimony in that regard was credible and is accepted. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the horse-washing facilities are adequate to prevent the release of wash water to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Petitioners expressed further concerns that horse washing outside of the horse-washing facilities would be facilitated due to the location of hose bibs along the exterior stable walls. However, Mr. Swakon testified that those concerns would be minimized if the hose bibs could be disabled to prevent the attachment of hoses. The December 2012 Updated BMP Plan requires such disabling, and Mr. Stone testified that the threads have been removed. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the presence of hose bibs on the exterior stable walls will not result in conditions that would allow for the release of wash water to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Best Management Practices The Updated BMP Plan for the Complex includes practices that are more advanced than the minimum requirements of the Village of Wellington, and more stringent than BMPs approved for other equestrian facilities in Wellington. Petitioners identified several issues related to the Updated BMP Plan that allegedly compromised the ability of the Complex to meet and maintain standards. Those issues included: the lack of a requirement that the Applicant provide the District with a copy of the contract with a Village of Wellington-approved manure hauler; the failure to require that BMP Officers be independent of the Applicants; the failure to require that the names and telephone numbers of the BMP Officers be listed in the permit; and the failure of the District to require that violations by tenants be reported to the District, rather than being maintained on-site as required. Mr. Stone testified that the BMP conditions included in the Updated BMP Plan were sufficient to assure compliance. His testimony is credited. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the terms and conditions of the Updated BMP Plan are capable of being implemented and enforced. Permitting Standards - Applicant Capabilities Provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that are based on the capabilities of the Applicants to implement the Permit, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will be conducted by an entity with the sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued. As the owners of the Complex property, the Applicants have the legal authority to ensure that their tenants, licensees, invitees, and agents exercise their rights to the property in a manner that does not violate applicable laws, rules, and conditions. Regarding the financial capability of the Applicants to ensure the successful and compliant operation of the Complex, Mr. Stone testified that the entity that owns the Applicants, Wellington Equestrian Partners, has considerable financial resources backing the Complex venture. Furthermore, the Applicants own the property on and adjacent to the Complex which is itself valuable. As to the administrative capabilities of the Applicants to ensure that the activities on the site will comply with relevant standards, Mr. Stone testified that an experienced and financially responsible related entity, Equestrian Sport Productions, by agreement with the Applicants, is charged with organizing and operating events at the Complex, and that the Applicants’ BMP Officers have sufficient authority to monitor activities and ensure compliance with the BMPs by tenants and invitees. Mr. Stone’s testimony that the Applicants have the financial and administrative capability to ensure that events and other operations will be conducted in a manner to ensure that the stormwater management system conditions, including BMPs, will be performed was persuasive and is accepted. The fact that the Applicants are financially and administratively backed by related parent and sibling entities does not diminish the reasonable assurances provided by the Applicants that the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Complex will be undertaken in accordance with the Permit. Petitioners assert that many of the events to be held at the Complex are sanctioned by international equestrian organizations, and that their event rules and requirements -- which include restrictions on the ability to remove competition teams from the grounds -- limit the Applicants’ ability to enforce the BMPs. Thus, the Petitioners suggest that reasonable assurances cannot be provided as a result of the restrictions imposed by those sanctioning bodies. The international event rules applicable to horses and riders are not so limiting as to diminish the reasonable assurances that have been provided by the Applicants. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that construction and operation of the stormwater management system will be conducted by entities with sufficient financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. As a related matter, Petitioners assert the Applicants failed to disclose all of their contiguous land holdings, thus making it impossible for the District to calculate the actual impact of the Complex. Although the application was, for a number of items, an evolving document, the evidence demonstrates that the Applicants advised the District of their complete 59+- acre holdings, and that the Permit was based on a complete disclosure. The circumstances of the disclosure of the Applicant’s property interests in the area adjacent to the Complex was not a violation of applicable standards, and is not a basis for denial of the Complex permit. Permitting Standards - C-51 Basin Rule The final provision of rule 40E-4.301 that is at issue in this proceeding is as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41, F.A.C. Mr. Hall testified the Complex violated permitting standards partly because it failed to comply with the C-51 Basin rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-041, Part III, pertaining to on-site compensation for reductions in soil storage volume. Mr. Waterhouse testified that the C-51 Basin rule does not apply to the lands encompassed by the Acme Improvement District permits, including the Complex property. The C-51 Basin rule was promulgated in 1987, after the issuance of the original Acme Improvement District permit. The District does not apply new regulatory standards to properties that are the subject of a valid permit or its modifications. Therefore, the area encompassed by the 1978 Acme Permit, and activities permitted in that area as a modification to the 1978 Acme Permit, are not subject to the C-51 rule. The Joint Prehearing Stipulation provides that “Chapter 373, Fla. Stat., Chapter 40E-4, Fla. Admin. Code, and the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District (July 4, 2010) are the applicable substantive provisions at issue in this proceeding.” The Stipulation did not identify chapter 40E-41 as being applicable in this proceeding. Given the testimony of Mr. Waterhouse, which correctly applies standards regarding the application of subsequently promulgated rules to existing permits, and the stipulation of the parties, the C-51 Basin rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40-E-041, Part III, does not apply to the permit that is the subject of this proceeding. Therefore, the stormwater management system does not violate rule 40E-4.301(1)(k). Consideration of Violations Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(2), provides, in pertinent part, that: When determining whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met, the District shall take into consideration a permit applicant’s violation of any . . . District rules adopted pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S., relating to any other project or activity and efforts taken by the applicant to resolve these violations. . . . Petitioners have identified several violations of District rules on or adjacent to the Complex property during the course of construction, and violations of District rules associated with the Palm Beach International Equestrian Center (PBIEC), the owner of which shares common managers and officers with the Applicants, for consideration in determining whether reasonable assurances have been provided. Violations on or Adjacent to the Complex On March 22, 2012, the District performed an inspection of the Complex property. The inspection revealed that the Applicants had constructed the linear berm along the eastern side of the Property that was the subject of the January 25, 2012, application for modification of the Permit. The construction was performed before a permit modification was issued, and was therefore unauthorized. A Notice of Violation was issued to Far Niente Stables II, LLC, on March 22, 2012, that instructed Far Niente Stables II, LLC, to cease all work on the Complex. Several draft consent orders were provided to Far Niente Stables II, LLC, each of which instructed Far Niente Stables II, LLC, to cease and desist from further construction. Construction was not stopped until April 18, 2012. The matter was settled through the entry of a Consent Order on May 10, 2012 that called for payment of costs and civil penalties. The berm was authorized as part of the March 26, 2012 Complex permit modification. All compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District During inspections of the Complex by the parties to this proceeding, it was discovered that yard drains had been constructed between the stables and connected to the stormwater management system, and that a bathroom/utility room had been constructed at the north end of the horse-washing facility. The structures were not depicted in any plans submitted to the District, and were not authorized by the Permit. The yard drains had the potential to allow for animal waste to enter Moose Lake. The Applicants, under instruction from the District, have capped the yard drains. No other official compliance action has been taken by the District. A permit condition to ensure that the yard drains remain capped is appropriate and warranted. At some time during or before 2010, a mound of fill material was placed on the derby and grand prix field to the north of the Complex to be used as an event obstacle. Although there was a suggestion that a permit should have been obtained prior to the fill being placed, the District has taken no enforcement action regarding the earthen mound. Petitioners noted that the Complex is being operated, despite the fact that no notice of completion has been provided, and no conversion from the construction phase to the operation phase has been performed as required by General Condition Nos. 6 and 7 of the Complex permit. Such operations constitute a violation of the permit and, as such, a violation of District rules. However, the District has taken no official action to prohibit or restrict the operation of the Complex pending completion and certification of the permitted work and conversion of the permit to its operation phase. The construction of the berm, yard drains, and bathroom/utility room, and the operation of the Complex, causes concern regarding the willingness of the Applicants to work within the regulatory parameters designed to ensure protection of Florida’s resources. However, given the scope of the Complex as a whole, and given that the violations were resolved to the satisfaction of the District, the violations, though considered, do not demonstrate a lack of reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met. Violations related to the PBIEC At some time prior to February 13, 2008, one or more entities affiliated with Mark Bellissimo assumed control and operation of the PBIEC. When the facility was acquired, the show grounds were in poor condition, there were regulatory violations, it had no BMPs of consequence, there were no covered horse-wash racks, and the wash water was not discharged to a sanitary sewer system. After its acquisition by entities associated with Mr. Bellissimo, the PBIEC was substantially redesigned and rebuilt, and BMPs that met or exceeded the requirements of the Village of Wellington were implemented. The PBIEC currently has 12 arenas that include facilities for show jumping events, and nine horse-wash racks. The PBIEC has the capacity to handle approximately 1,700 horses. On March 14, 2008, the District issued a Notice of Violation to Far Niente Stables V, LLC, related to filling and grading of an existing stormwater management system and lake system at the PBIEC; the failure to maintain erosion and turbidity controls to prevent water quality violations in adjacent waters; the failure to maintain manure and equestrian waste BMPs; and the failure to transfer the PBIEC stormwater management permit to the current owner. On October 9, 2008, Far Niente Stables V, LLC, and the District entered into a Consent Order that resolved the violations at the PBIEC, required that improvements be made, required the implementation of advanced BMPs, and required payment of costs and civil penalties. On January 12, 2011, a notice was issued that identified deficiencies in the engineer’s construction completion certification for the stormwater management system improvements, horse-wash facility connections, and other activities on the PBIEC. Although completion of all items required by the Consent Order took longer -- in some instances significantly longer -- than the time frames set forth in the Consent Order,6/ all compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District. On January 7, 2011, the District issued a Notice of Violation and short-form Consent Order to Far Niente Stables, LLC, which set forth violations that related to the failure to obtain an environmental resource permit related to “Tract D and Equestrian Club Drive Realignment.” The short-form Consent Order was signed by Far Niente Stables, LLC, and the compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District. Based on the foregoing, the violations at the PBIEC, though considered, do not demonstrate a lack of reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met for the Complex Permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order: Incorporating the June 29, 2012, Order of Standing and Timeliness; Approving the issuance of Surface Water Management System Permit No. 50-00548-S-203 to Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC.; and Imposing, as an additional condition, a requirement that the unpermitted yard drains constructed between the stables be permanently capped, and the area graded, to prevent the unauthorized introduction of equine waste from the area to the stormwater management system. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 2013, 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 26th day of April, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether an Environmental Resource Permit should be issued to Luther E. Blake, Jr. and Irene Blake Caudle authorizing the construction of a stormwater management system to serve a single-family development known as Walnut Creek, Phases I and II, in Gainesville, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this environmental permitting dispute, Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), proposes to issue an Environmental Resource Permit to Respondents, Luther E. Blake, Jr. and Irene Blake Caudle (Applicants), authorizing the construction of a stormwater management system to serve Phases I and II of a single-family development known as Walnut Creek Subdivision in Gainesville, Florida. The system will be located on a 31-acre, L-shaped parcel of undeveloped, forested land. The proposed system includes a 135-lot single family subdivision, internal roadways with curb and gutter, a storm sewer system, and five dry retention ponds. The project site is located west of Northwest 13th Street (Highway 441) in the northwestern portion of the City of Gainesville between Northwest 39th Avenue (State Road 222) and Northwest 31st Boulevard, west of Palm Grove Subdivision, and east of Hidden Pines Subdivision. Petitioner, Glen Springs Preservation Association, Inc. (Association), is a corporation made up of an undisclosed number of persons, at least one of whom resides adjacent to or near the proposed project site. Petitioner, Elizabeth T. Furlow (Furlow), who did not indicate that she is a member, also resides with her husband near the project site. As set forth in the parties' Prehearing Stipulation, Petitioners contend that the proposed system fails to meet certain design and performance criteria, that the Applicants have failed to submit the appropriate documentation to satisfy the operation and maintenance entity requirements, and that the Applicants have failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system meets the general requirements for issuance of a permit. More specifically, they contend that the requirements of Rules 40C-42.023(1)(a)-(c), 40C-42.025(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (10), 40C-42.026(1)(a), (c), and (d), and 40C- 42.027, Florida Administrative Code, have not been met.2 On these technical issues, the parties have presented conflicting expert testimony, and the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony, as set forth in the findings below. Respondents have not stipulated to Petitioners' standing. Through the testimony of Furlow's husband, it was established that the Furlows live just south of the project site, approximately 100 yards north of Northwest 31st Boulevard near a creek known as Glen Springs Creek (Creek). The Furlows fear that if a permit is issued, runoff from the project site will cause further erosion of the Creek's banks and flooding during rainfall events. Although three persons who live adjacent to or near the project site appeared as witnesses, only one (Bonnie O'Brien) indicated that she is a member of the Association. Ms. O'Brien has lived just west of the Creek since 1969, around one-half mile from the project site. Over the years, and due to erosion caused by increasing development in the area, much of which began before the District began permitting stormwater systems, the Creek's banks have increased in depth from around a foot or so to as much as six feet. During large storm events, the Creek's waters rise up to as much as five feet in depth. Like the Furlows, Ms. O'Brien fears that runoff from the project will go into the Creek and adversely affect her property. There was, however, no evidence concerning the Association's interests, whether the Association is a Florida corporation, the number of members in the Association, and except for Ms. O'Brien, whether any of its members are substantially affected by the proposed activity.3 Design and performance criteria The Applicants propose to use a dry retention system consisting of five dry retention ponds ranging in depth from three to four and one-quarter feet which will be located mainly along the western boundaries of the project site. In general terms, stormwater runoff from the residential lots will sheet flow to roadways and alleys, will be collected by curbs and gutters, and then will be conveyed to the five ponds for water quality treatment. Rule 40C-42.025(1) requires that "[e]rosion and sediment control best management practices shall be used as necessary during construction to retain sediment on-site." The more persuasive evidence shows that the applicants have done so, and that the best management practices used by the Applicants are generally utilized throughout the development community. Therefore, the requirements of this rule have been met. Rule 40C-42.025(3) provides that unless applicable local regulations are more restrictive, "[n]ormally dry basins designed to impound more than two feet of water or permanently wet basins shall be fenced or otherwise restricted from public access." The proposed retention basins that have three-to-one (horizontal: vertical) side slopes will be fenced to prevent public access. The evidence also shows that there are no applicable, more restrictive local regulations. Under Rule 40C-42.025(4), "[a]ll stormwater basin side slopes shall be stabilized by either vegetation or other materials to minimize erosion and sedimentation of the basins." As to this requirement, the evidence establishes that all of the stormwater basin side slopes will be stabilized by vegetation to minimize erosion and sedimentation of the basins, as required by the rule. Further, the proposed retention basin side slopes are four-to-one and three-to-one. Slopes of this dimension are typically stable and will not easily erode. Rule 40C-42.025(5) requires that the systems be designed so that they "accommodate maintenance equipment access" and "facilitate regular operational maintenance." The evidence shows that the Applicants own the entire project site, and each of the five retention ponds can be accessed from roads and alleys within the project site. Rule 40C-42.025(6) requires that an applicant "obtain sufficient legal authorization as appropriate prior to permit issuance for stormwater management systems which propose to utilize offsite areas to satisfy the requirement in subsection 40C-42.023(1), F.A.C." Because the Applicants are not proposing to use any offsite areas for the system, and the system is located entirely on the project site, no "legal authorization" from other persons is required. Under Rule 40C-42.025(7), the system "shall provide gravity or pumped discharge that effectively operates under . . . [m]aximum stage in the receiving water resulting from the mean annual 24-hour storm." Calculations performed by the Applicants, and verified by the District's independent calculations, show that the system is designed to retain all of the runoff from the mean annual 24-hour storm event. Therefore, this rule has been satisfied. Rule 40C-42.025(8) provides that if a system serves a new construction area with greater than 50 percent impervious surface, an applicant is required to demonstrate that "post- development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the pre- development peak rate of discharge" for the mean annual 24-hour storm event. If the system serves a new construction area with less than 50 percent impervious surface, however, the requirements of this rule do not apply. The evidence shows that the proposed retention system will serve a new construction area (around 12 acres) with less than 50 percent impervious area. Therefore, the rule does not apply. Even so, the Applicants demonstrated that the post- development peak rate of discharge from the project site will not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge for the 24-hour storm event. In fact, the post-development peak rate of discharge from the project site during the 24-hour mean annual storm event will be zero. Finally, Rule 40C-42.025(10) requires in part that the construction plans and supporting calculations be "signed, sealed, and dated by an appropriate registered professional." The evidence shows that the final set of plans submitted in January 2002 by the Applicants was signed and sealed by H. Jerome Kelly, a professional engineer.4 Specific design and performance criteria Rule 40C-40.026(1)(a) requires that the retention system provide retention of stormwater runoff in one of four ways. Here, the Applicants have designed the system to provide "[o]n-line retention of an additional one half inch of runoff from the drainage area over the volume specified in subparagraph 1. above." Subparagraph 1. requires "[o]ff-line retention of the first one half of runoff or 1.25 inches of runoff from the impervious area, whichever is greater[.]" Because the system will provide on-line retention of a minimum of one inch of runoff from the project area, plus 1.25 inches of runoff from the impervious soil in the project/drainage area, it is found that the capacity of the proposed retention system is more than adequate to capture the quantity of stormwater runoff required by this rule. Under Rule 40C-42.026(1)(c), the system must be designed to "[p]rovide the capacity for the appropriate treatment volume of stormwater specified in paragraphs (a) and (c) above, within 72 hours following the storm event assuming average antecedent moisture conditions." To assure compliance with this rule, and to demonstrate that the system meets the required recovery of the water quality treatment volume, the District performed modeling to predict the vertical infiltration rate and the groundwater mounding effects of the proposed retention system. For the reasons stated below, it is found that the system will provide the required amount of treatment volume capacity within 72 hours of a storm event assuming average antecedent moisture conditions, as required by the rule. The District used one of the latest versions of the MODRET computer modeling program, a methodology routinely used by the District to support an application for this type of retention system. That program takes into account vertical percolation into the soil; once the water reaches the water table, the model then takes into account the lateral or horizontal movement of the water out of the pond. The model is used to determine whether the required water quality treatment volume, which is significantly less than the storage volume in the ponds, will draw down within three days. The modeling confirmed that this requirement will be satisfied. Data from the Applicants' on-site soil survey was used in the model to establish the depth below ground surface of the seasonal high water table level. This resulted in a conservative assumption of an above-normal average antecedent moisture condition beneath the retention ponds. The Applicants also collected soil samples from the project site, including those areas where the retention ponds will be located, and they performed laboratory tests in accordance with ASTM D2434 to calculate the vertical hydraulic conductivity and the horizontal hydraulic conductivity for those soils. The results of both tests fall within accepted ranges as stated in the published soils texts and governmental soils surveys for the project area. In addition, the Applicants conducted an independent test to determine the mean seasonal high water table on the project site. Based on visual observations of the soil samples, the Applicants determined that the mean seasonal high water table is between six and seven feet below ground surface. The visual observation of the soil samples is compatible with the results of Petitioners' soil augers obtained off the project site. As noted earlier, the proposed retention ponds will have a depth of three to four and one-quarter feet, which places the bottom of the ponds above the mean high water table as determined by the Applicants' calculations and as stated in the soils survey for Alachua County. Therefore, the dry retention ponds should not be considered impervious surfaces. Finally, Rule 40C-42.026(1)(d) requires that the retention system "[b]e stabilized with pervious material or permanent vegetation cover." The evidence shows that the proposed retention system will be stabilized with permanent vegetative cover. Other requirements and concerns Runoff from other developed properties in the vicinity of the proposed project site discharges into the Creek, contributing to erosion in the Creek. Not all of these existing developments have stormwater management systems on-site, since some of the older properties were built before the District assumed regulation over this activity. The proposed system can be effectively operated and maintained without causing or exacerbating the erosion problems that currently exist within the Creek system. This is because once the system is built, the amount of runoff leaving the site will be less than what is now present in the pre-development state. Thus, the project, as now designed, will not adversely affect drainage and flood protection on adjacent or nearby properties. Through the submission of a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and Declaration of Covenants for the Walnut Creek Homeowner's Association, the Applicants demonstrated that the District's requirements regarding the operation and maintenance of the proposed system after completion of construction will be met, as required by Rule 40C-42.027(4).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order granting application number 42-001- 71000-1 of Luther E. Blake, Jr. and Irene Blake Caudle for an Environmental Resource Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 14th day of February, 2002.
The Issue The issue is whether an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and a Letter of Consent to Use Sovereignty Submerged Lands (Letter of Consent) should be issued to Respondent, Palm Beach County (County), authorizing it to fill 7.97 acres of submerged lands for a restoration project in Lake Worth Lagoon.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings are determined: The Parties Trump is the owner association for a two-towered residential and commercial condominium building located at 525 South Flagler Drive in downtown West Palm Beach, upland and west of the project site in the Lagoon. Each tower rises thirty floors and together they have of two hundred twenty units. The first five floors are common areas including a lobby on the first floor, while a pool and patio are located on the fifth floor of the north tower. The property is separated from the Lagoon by Flagler Drive, a four-lane divided road with landscaping and sidewalks which runs adjacent to, and on the western side of, the Lagoon. There is no dispute that Trump has standing to initiate this action. Flagler owns, manages, and leases two multi-story office buildings located at 501 Flagler Drive on the upland real property directly west of the project location. Like the Trump property, the Flagler property is separated from the Lagoon by Flagler Drive. There is no dispute that Flagler has standing to participate in this matter. The County is a political subdivision of the State and is the applicant in this proceeding. The Department is the state agency with the authority under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes,2 to issue to the County an ERP for the project, as well as authority as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees) to authorize activities on sovereign submerged lands pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 18-21. Background On October 29, 2007, the County submitted to the Department its Joint Application for an ERP and Letter of Consent to use sovereignty submerged lands in the Lagoon owned by the Board of Trustees. The application was assigned File No. 50- 0283929-00. After an extensive review process, including three requests for additional information, on August 12, 2008, the Department issued its Notice of Intent authorizing the County to fill 7.97 acres of submerged lands in the Lagoon with approximately 172,931 cubic yards of sand and rock material to create the following: (a) approximately 1.75 acres of red mangrove habitat including 1.52 acres of mangrove islands and 0.23 acres of red mangrove planters; (b) approximately 0.22 acres of cordgrass habitat; (c) approximately 0.90 acres of oyster habitat; (d) approximately 3.44 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation habitat; and (e) a 10-foot by 556-foot (5,560 square feet) public boardwalk with two 3-foot by 16-foot (48 square feet) educational kiosk areas and a 16-foot by 16-foot (256 square feet) observation deck for a total square footage of approximately 5,912 square feet. The Notice of Intent also included a number of general and specific conditions particular to this project. Trump (by timely Petition) and Flagler (by intervention) then challenged the Notice of Intent. They contend generally that the project unreasonably infringes upon or restricts their riparian rights and fails to meet the permitting and consent to use criteria set forth in Chapters 18-21 and 40E-4, as well as Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Section 253.141, Florida Statutes. Conflicting evidence on these issues was presented at the hearing. The conflicts have been resolved in favor of the County and the Department, who presented the more persuasive evidence. The Project The project area is a cove in the Lagoon, a Class III water body which extends within the County from North Palm Beach to Manalapan. The western side of the water body in the project area is lined with a vertical concrete seawall approximately 6.64 feet above the mean low water line. The waters immediately adjacent to the Trump and Flagler upland property are generally two to five feet deep along the seawall. To the east lies the island of Palm Beach, to the south is the Royal Park Bridge, which connects West Palm Beach and the Town of Palm Beach, while to the north is the Flagler Memorial drawbridge. The Lagoon is approximately 2,000 feet from shore to shore. The Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) runs roughly through the middle of the Lagoon in a north-south direction. Currently, there is an artificial dredge hole in the project area around four hundred feet from the western seawall. The dredge hole, which descends to approximately twenty feet at its deepest location, is filled with muck, which can be re- suspended by wave energy into the water, blocking the sunlight necessary for the support of biotic life. The muck covers the natural hard bottom, consumes oxygen, and presents an unsuitable environment for benthic organisms. The dredge hole is too deep to support seagrasses. The project calls for filling the dredge hole to intertidal elevations, i.e., between the high and low tide elevations, for mangroves and elevations suitable for seagrass. In all, approximately 173,000 cubic yards of fill will be placed in and around the hole to build up three separate islands within the project footprint, on which the County will plant 10,000 red mangroves, which naturally grow between fifteen and twenty-five feet in height. (The County estimates that eighty to ninety percent of the mangroves will survive and grow to a height of at least fifteen feet.) The top of the islands, not including mangroves, will be just below the mean high water mark. The County also proposes locating planters along the seawall and oyster reefs along the southern end of the project. The planters are designed to extend out approximately twenty feet from the seawall and will be placed on sovereign submerged lands. The last five feet will consist of limestone rock. Mangrove, spartina, and seagrass habitats will provide a biodiverse source of food and habitat for other species, and occurs naturally within the Lagoon but has been lost over time. Oyster habitat is proposed for additional bio-diversity and to provide a natural water filtration function. From the County's perspective, the restoration project would be incomplete without all the habitats proposed. The planters will be at an intertidal elevation, planted with red mangroves and spartina, and faced with rock to reduce wave energy in the area. The oyster reefs are rock structures designed to rise one foot above mean high water line for visibility to boaters. The project also includes a boardwalk and attached educational kiosks on the south side of the project to bring the public in contact with the habitats. The County will maintain the boardwalk, empty the trash daily, and open/close the gates at sunrise/sunset. The County proposes a minimum ten-foot buffer between seagrass beds and the fill area. The project is part of the County's Lagoon Management Plan, which outlines the County's restoration goals within the Lagoon. The County has performed numerous other restoration projects within the Lagoon to re-introduce mangrove and seagrass habitat, such as Snook Island, which consisted of filling a 100- acre dredge hole, installing mangrove islands, seagrass flats, and oyster reefs. The Snook Island project restored mangrove habitat and recruited fish and bird species, including endangered and threatened species. Snook Island has remained stable, with no sediment deposition or erosion. The County intends to fill the dredge hole with native lagoon bottom sediment. A clam-shell machine will deposit the sediment below the water line to reduce turbidity. Sediment will be placed around the edges of the dredge hole, reducing the velocity of the fill as it settles to the bottom and encapsulates the muck, as required by Draft Permit Special Condition No. 19. The County will use turbidity curtains, monitor conditions hourly, and stop work if turbidity levels rise beyond acceptable standards. These precautions are included in Draft Permit Conditions 12, 13, and 14. The County will use construction barges with a four- foot draft to avoid propeller dredge or rutting and will place buoys along the project boundary to guide the construction barges, precautions integrated into the Draft Permit conditions. The County's vendor contracts require maintenance of construction equipment to prevent leakage. A similar condition is found in the Draft Permit. Both the intertidal and seagrass flats elevations at the top of the islands will be built at a 4:1 slope; elevations subject to wind and wave energy will be reinforced with a rock revetment constructed of filter cloth and rock boulders. Seagrass elevations will have no reinforcing rock because they are deep enough to avoid significant currents. Proposed drawings were signed and sealed by a professional engineer. The ERP Criteria To secure regulatory approval for an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions in current Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E- 4.302. The first rule focuses primarily on water quantity, environmental impacts, and water quality. The latter rule requires that a public interest balancing test be made, and that cumulative impacts, if any, be considered. Also, the BOR, which implements the rule criteria, must be taken into account. a. Rule 40E-4.301 21. Paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c), (1)(g), (1)(h), and (1)(k) and subsections (2) and (3) of the rule do not apply. Although Trump and Flagler have focused primarily on paragraphs (1)(d), (f), and (i) in their joint Proposed Recommended Order, all remaining criteria will be addressed. Paragraph (1)(d) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the proposed activity "will not adversely affect the value of the functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters." Based on the project design, the filling of the dredge hole and capping of muck, the restoration of seagrass habitat, and the creation of mangrove habitat, the project will have no adverse impacts but rather will be beneficial to the value of functions for fish and wildlife. Paragraph (1)(e) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The County will be required to manage turbidity that may be generated from the project. In part, the turbidity will be contained by the proposed construction method for filling the dredge hole. As noted earlier, the native sand will be deposited using a clamshell-type arm to dump the sand under the water around the periphery of the edge of the downward slope of the dredge hole. This will continue around the periphery of the hole, building up a lip and letting it slide down towards the bottom of the hole, squeezing the muck into the center of the hole and beginning to encapsulate it. Once there are several feet of native sand over the muck to encapsulate it, the County will resume the filling at the target rate. Subsection 4.2.4.1 of the BOR requires that the County address stabilizing newly created slopes of surfaces. To satisfy this requirement, the County will place the fill at a 4:1 slope. The outer edge of the mangrove islands slope back to a 4:1 slope and use rock rip-rap to stabilize that slope. Also, filter cloth, bedding stones, and boulders will be used. Because water currents slow near the bottom, the 4:1 slope for the seagrass elevations on the bottom will not de-stabilize. There will be turbidity curtains around the project area. Those are floating tops and weighted bottoms that reach to the bottom and are intended to contain any turbidity that may be generated by the project. Specific Conditions 12, 13, and 14 require extensive monitoring of turbidity. The County proposes to use a barge with a draft no greater than four feet. This aspect of the project will require a pre-construction meeting and extensive monitoring throughout the project. As a part of the application review, the County performed a hydrographic analysis which was coordinated with and reviewed by the Department staff. There are no expected debris or siltation concerns as a result of the project. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that over the long term, the project is expected to have a beneficial effect on water quality. By filling the dredge hole and providing habitat for seagrass, mangroves, and oysters, the project will provide net improvement to water quality. The requirements of the rule have been met. Paragraph (1)(f) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the activities will not "cause secondary impacts to the water resources." More detailed criteria for consideration are found in BOR Subsection 4.2.7. The County has provided reasonable assurance that through best management practices, it will control turbidity. Also, Specific Conditions in the proposed permit require that water quality monitoring be conducted throughout the process. There will be no impacts to upland habitat for aquatic or wetland dependent species. This is because a vertical seawall is located upland of the project site, and no surrounding uplands are available for nesting or denning by aquatic or wetland dependent listed species. A secondary impact evaluation also includes an evaluation of any related activities that might impact historical and archaeological resources. There are, however, no historical or archaeological resources in the area. If resources are uncovered during the project, Draft Permit conditions require notification to the Department of State. Finally, there are no anticipated future activities or future phases on the project to be considered. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the project "will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed." Trump and Flagler contend that the project cannot be constructed and successfully operated as proposed. Trump's expert witness, Joseph Pike, testified that there were ambiguities and conflicts within the plan drawings that would require changes upon build-out; either fill will be placed outside of the fill area, or the mangrove islands will be smaller than depicted. Mr. Pike also voiced concerns that a 4:1 slope would not be stable and might cause fill to migrate to existing seagrass beds. He further stated that the Snook Island project included 18:1 slopes, and he thought providing rock revetment only at the intertidal zone was insufficient. Mr. Pike acknowledged that he had used 4:1 slopes in lake projects; however, in a tidal project involving fill placement, he opined that a 4:1 slope was likely to "relax." He did not do calculations about what slope might hold and admitted that prior experience using similar slopes with the same type of fill might change his opinion. Finally, Mr. Pike noted that a portion of the dredge hole would not be filled and concluded that the project would not fully cap the muck. Trump's biologist, James Goldasitch, speculated that the water flow changes would cause sediment deposition on existing seagrass beds, possibly causing the seagrasses to die. He admitted, however, that the County's plans called for the creation of 3.44 acres of seagrass and did not know the amount of habitat created compared to the amount of habitat he anticipated being affected. The Department's engineer, Jack Wu, approved the hydrologic aspects of the County's plan, but Mr. Goldasitch speculated that Mr. Wu was more focused on shoreline stability than on depositional forces. Mr. Goldasitch never actually spoke to Mr. Wu regarding his analysis, and Mr. Wu's memorandum refers not only to engineering and construction aspects of the proposal but also to the criteria in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. Mr. Goldasitch believed the County's boardwalk will impact the seagrass beds by blocking sunlight, but acknowledged that the Draft Permit required the boardwalk to be elevated and portions to be grated. Both the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Department's expert witness concluded that the permit conditions for constructing the boardwalk, which are common, eliminated impacts to seagrass. Mr. Goldasitch further opined that the 4:1 slope might slump, but then deferred to the opinion of a registered engineer on this type of engineering matter. The County presented its professional engineer, Clint Thomas, who worked on the project design. Mr. Thomas explained that permit drawings are not intended to be construction-level in detail, but are merely intended to provide sufficient detail for the regulator to understand the project within the 8 and 1/2 by 11-inch paper format required by the Department. The County will ultimately prepare permit-level, construction-level, and as-built drawings. Permit conditions also require a pre-construction meeting. No fill will be placed outside the area designated for fill, and the 4:1 slope will start at the outer boundary of the designated fill area until it reaches the specified elevation. Mr. Thomas acknowledged that the plan view drawings depict a mangrove island too close to the western project boundary, but stated that the mangrove island would simply be placed farther to the east during the construction-level plan process. Islands will become smaller islands, but will not be relocated, and in no event will the fill area expand; the fill boundary is a very strict limit. There is no evidence that the County has ever violated a fill boundary established in a permit. The 4:1 slope was based on the type of fill proposed for the project and to maximize project features. Mr. Thomas has successfully used 4:1 slopes with non-compacted fill in the Lagoon, both at Snook Island in its as-built state and at other projects. The islands at Snook Island are similar to those proposed. Other areas in the Lagoon have held slopes steeper than 4:1 with the same type of fill. Therefore, Mr. Thomas opined the 4:1 slope would hold. In rendering this opinion, he explained that the currents in the project vicinity are only around 1.2 knots. Because currents slow near the bottom, the 4:1 slope for the seagrass elevations on the bottom will not de- stabilize. Mr. Thomas addressed the contention that a change in water flow velocity would cause sediment to deposit on existing seagrass. The oyster reefs are rubble structures that allow the water to flow through. If any sediment flows through, it will deposit on the north side of the oyster bar, rather than on the seagrass beds. Given these considerations, the evidence supports a finding that the project will function as proposed. Finally, paragraph (1)(j) requires that the County provide reasonable assurance that it has the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. The evidence supports a finding that the County has complied with this requirement. In summary, the evidence supports a finding that the County has given reasonable assurance that the project satisfies the criteria in Rule 40E-4.301. b. Rule 40E-4.302 In addition to the conditions of Rule 40E-4.301, the County must provide reasonable assurance that the construction of the proposed project will not be contrary to the public interest. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)1.-7. Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)1. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Trump first contends that the project will increase the mosquito population. The evidence shows, however, that the mangroves will be placed below the mean high water mark and therefore no increase in mosquitoes should occur. Also, the design of the project, coupled with the local mosquito control program, should ensure that there will be no increase in mosquito population or a risk to the public health. Trump also raised the issue of an increase in trash along the boardwalk area or in the newly-created mangrove islands. The County presented evidence that there will be appropriate trash receptacles in the area as well as regular garbage collection. In terms of safety, navigation markers are included as a part of the project for safe boating by the public. The County consulted with the United States Coast Guard regarding navigation issues. Further, the project will not cause flooding on the property of others or cause an environmental impact on other property. Although a number of Trump residents expressed sincere and well-intended concerns about the project impacting the value of their condominiums (mainly due to a loss of view), BOR Subsection 4.2.3.1(d) provides that the "[Department] will not consider impacts to property values or taxes." Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)2. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Subparagraph 4. of the same rule requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational value or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The proposed activity is a restoration project for the creation of seagrass and mangrove habitats. As such, it is beneficial to the conservation of fish and wildlife and is expected to increase the biotic life in the project area. Besides providing additional habitat for fish and wildlife, the project will add to the marine productivity in the area. In terms of recreational opportunities, the project is expected to be a destination for boating, kayaking, fishing, and birdwatching. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has also recommended issuance of the permit with the standard manatee condition for in-water work. This recommendation has been incorporated as Specific Conditions 23 through 25 Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)3. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect navigation and the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The nearest navigation channel is the ICW. The project is located outside of that area. Subsection 4.2.3.3 of the BOR provides additional guidance on the evaluation of impacts of this nature. Paragraph (a) of that subsection provides that, in evaluating a proposed activity, the Department "will consider the current navigational uses of the surface waters and will not speculate on uses which may occur in the future." Trump residents indicated that in the project area persons are now picked up off the seawall and then travel to the ICW. Access to the seawall is possible from the east and south, although existing shoals currently limit the approach from the south. Large boats do not use the area because of shoals. In general, "[t]here's not a whole lot of boating activity in the project area." The parties agree that if the project is constructed as designed, boats will not be able to travel directly out from the seawall in front on Trump or Flagler to the ICW, as they now do. However, navigation in the area will still be available, although not as convenient as before. As to water flow, shoaling, and erosion, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the 4:1 slope will be stable and will not cause fill to migrate outside of the boundaries of the project into existing seagrass beds. The tidal flow will continue through the area after construction without sediment deposition into existing seagrass beds or destabilizing the 4:1 slope. There will be no shoaling or erosion. Finally, the project will be permanent and there are no significant historical and archaeological resources in the area. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)5. and 6. In summary, the evidence supports a finding that the County's proposal is neutral as to whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others; that the County's proposal is neutral with respect to navigation, erosion and shoaling, and water flow, as well as to historical and archaeological concerns; and that the County's proposal is positive with respect to the conservation of fish and wildlife, recreational values and marine productivity, permanency, and current values and functions. When these factors are weighed and balanced, the project is not contrary to the public interest and qualifies for an ERP. D. Proprietary Authorization Chapter 18-21 applies to requests for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. The management policies, standards, and criteria used to determine whether to approve or deny a request are found in Rule 18-21.004. In making its review, the Department reviews the rule in its entirety; it also looks at the forms of authorization (e.g., letters of consent, leases, deeds, or easement) to determine the most appropriate form of authorization for an activity. Trump and Flagler have raised contentions regarding the proprietary authorization, including whether the application should have been treated as one of heightened public concern, whether the proper form of authorization has been used, and whether their riparian rights are unreasonably infringed upon by the project. Heightened Public Concern Rule 18-21.0051 provides for the delegation of review and decision-making authority to the Department for the use of sovereign submerged lands, with the following exception found in subsection (4) of the rule: (4) The delegations set forth in subsection (2) are not applicable to a specific application for a request to use sovereign submerged lands under Chapter 253 or 258, F.S., where one or more members of the Board, the Department, or the appropriate water management district determines that such application is reasonably expected to result in a heightened public concern, because of its potential effect on the environment, natural resources, or controversial nature or location. On March 13, 2008, the Department's West Palm Beach District Office sent a "heightened public concern [HPC]) memo" to the Department's review panel in Tallahassee,3 seeking guidance as to whether the project required review by the Board of Trustees under the above-cited rule. The Department emailed the County on March 14, 2008, stating that the project would be elevated to the Board of Trustees for review to approve the entire Lagoon Management Plan. The County asked for reconsideration, concerned over timing restraints on grant opportunities. This concern is based on the fact that the County will receive grant monies to assist in the construction of the project and must have regulatory approval by a date certain in order to secure those funds. A second HPC memorandum was sent to the review panel on April 22, 2008. Part of the interim decision to elevate the application to the Board of Trustees concerned the boardwalk connection to the City of West Palm Beach's existing seawall. The City of West Palm Beach is the upland owner of the seawall, sidewalk, and Flagler Drive. On June 9, 2008, the Mayor of West Palm Beach sent a letter to the Department stating that the City "fully supports" the proposed activity, and that the County and the City collaborated on the design of the project, held joint public meetings, and produced a project video. See Department Exhibit Trump and Flagler argue that under the City Charter, the Mayor cannot unilaterally bind the local government to allow structures to be built on City property. Assuming this is true, one of the remaining conditions for the County to initiate the project is to obtain a "letter of concurrence" from the City of West Palm Beach authorizing the County to connect the boardwalk to the seawall. Therefore, the review panel ultimately concluded that the application could be reviewed at the staff level and did not require Board of Trustees review. The evidence at hearing did not establish that the application was one of heightened public concern, given the limited size of the project, its location, and the net benefit to both environmental and natural resources. Compare Brown, et al. v. South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., et al., DOAH Case No. 04-0476, 2004 Fla. ENV LEXIS 112 (DOAH Aug. 2, 2004, SFWMD Sept. 8, 2004). Therefore, review by the Board of Trustees was not required. Form of Authorization Trump and Flagler contend that an easement is required by the County, rather than a consent of use. The standard for obtaining an easement is more stringent than a consent of use, and an easement offers a greater interest in sovereign lands. Rule 18-21.005(1) provides the general policy direction for determining the appropriate form of authorization and reads in relevant part as follows: It is the intent of the Board that the form of authorization shall grant the least amount of interest in the sovereignty submerged lands necessary for the activity. For activities not specifically listed, the Board will consider the extent of interest needed and the nature of the proposed activity to determine which form of authorization is appropriate. This rule requires that the Department should apply the lowest and least restrictive form of authorization. Trump and Flagler argue that the County's project constitutes a spoil disposal site under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)8., a public water management project other than public channels under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)10., or a management activity which includes "permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public," as described in Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)11. Each of these activities requires an easement rather than a letter of consent in order to use sovereign submerged lands. The evidence shows that the County's project is not a spoil disposal site. Also, it is not primarily a public water management project as there is no evidence that the project relates in any way to flood control, water storage or supply, or conservation of water. Likewise, there is no evidence indicating that the activities will prevent access by the public by exclusion. Even though many of the features (structures) of the project will be permanent, the project is intended to generally increase public access to water resources, as well as the islands, boardwalk, and kiosks. Besides raising the issue of heightened public concern, the second HPC Memorandum dated April 22, 2008, sought guidance as to whether the project required a consent of use or an easement. The review panel concluded that the project qualified for a consent of use, rather than an easement under Rule 18- 21.005(1)(f), because the County's project most closely fits the definition in Rule 18-21.005(1)(c)15. That rule provides that if the proposed activity involves "[h]abitat restoration, enhancement, or permitted mitigation activities without permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public," an applicant may use sovereign submerged lands with a consent of use. Because the County's project increases public access not only to water resources in the Lagoon but also to the permanent structures being built, it more closely falls within the type of activity described in Rule 18-21.005(1)(c)15. Notably, all of the County's restoration projects in the Lagoon have been previously authorized through a consent of use. Finally, the review panel concluded that the project did not fall under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)16., which requires an easement for environmental management activities that include "permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public" because of the rule's focus on the exclusion of the general public. Riparian Rights The parties have stipulated, for the purpose of this proceeding, that Trump and Flagler have riparian rights, including view, ingress/egress, fishing, boating, swimming, and the qualified right to apply for a dock, that should be considered. Trump and Flagler contend that their right to wharf out (build a dock) from the seawall, ingress/egress from navigable water, and view will be unreasonably infringed upon if the application is approved. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18- 21.004(3)(a)("[n]one of the provisions of this rule shall be implemented in a manner that would unreasonably infringe upon the traditional, common law riparian rights, as defined in Section 253.141, F.S., of upland property owners adjacent to sovereignty submerged lands"). For the reasons given below, the greater weight of evidence establishes that none of these riparian rights will be unreasonably infringed upon. Currently, while access is possible from the east and the southern approaches, existing shoals limit the southern approach. The boardwalk will further limit boat traffic on the south end, and boats would not be able to cross over the islands. Boat traffic will still be able to access the cove from the north end, and the restoration project will create a boating destination. Trump witness Pike opined that the County's project would negatively affect navigation between the upland parcels and the ICW because the project would eliminate the eastern and southern approaches and leave only the northern approach, which could not be used by both parcels fully. The County's expert, Dr. Nicholas De Gennarro, testified that, during his site visits, he observed boat traffic waiting for the drawbridges using the east side of the ICW away from the project site. Dr. De Gennarro noted that several existing structures are closer to the ICW than the proposed County project, which lies 220 feet away from the ICW. Thus, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that the project would not impact navigation in the ICW. With respect to ingress/egress, Dr. De Gennarro acknowledged that access to the Trump and Flagler properties would not be available from the southern and eastern approaches, but concluded that the restriction represented nothing more than an inconvenience. He noted that the southern approach was already a less preferable approach due to existing shoals. At present, there is very little boating in the area outside of special events. While the project would limit the use of boats directly over the one and one-half acres of mangrove islands, the project will provide a boating destination. Further, both the City docks to the north of the site and the temporary docks in front of Flagler's property –- both used for special events –- will still be available under the County's proposal. There is no swimming and very little fishing in the area because of the degraded conditions caused by the dredge hole. Accordingly, while the project will fill a small portion of water currently available, but not used, for swimming, it will greatly enhance swimming by providing a destination for swimmers. The mangroves planned for the intertidal islands are likely to reach a height of fifteen feet and will be interspersed with spartina. The seawall is located six feet above the water line, making a person's view at eye level already several feet above the water. Trump and Flagler's buildings are built at even higher elevations. Therefore, the mangroves will not substantially obscure the view from either property, even at street level where the view is already partially obscured by existing landscaping. The Lagoon is approximately 2,000 feet across. From north to south around one hundred acres of water can now be viewed from the vicinity. Since the intertidal islands only comprise one and one-half acres, the overall impact to the view of the water body is very small. The mangroves in the planters extending out from the seawall will be trimmed to one foot above the seawall; the County requested the condition and committed at hearing to trimming the mangroves if the City of West Palm Beach does not. County photographs show Trump and Flagler's present view of the water body and demonstrate the comparatively small percentage of the view affected by the one and one-half acres of mangrove islands. See County Exhibits 133a-e and 134a-d. The photographs also demonstrated that sizeable palm trees are already part of the existing view. Additionally, the County photographs depicted the small impact that trimmed mangrove planters would have on the view. The area obstructed by the mangrove islands and seagrass is negligible compared to the expanse of the existing view. Trump and Flagler offered no evidence to contradict the County's analysis regarding the scope of the impact on the view. Trump residents Dale McNulty, Dean Goodman, and Charles Lemoine testified that they personally would not want to view mangrove islands regardless of tree size or the size of the islands. Understandably, after years of unfettered view and an open expanse of water, they are opposed to any type of project in this area of the Lagoon. However, Mr. Goodman acknowledged that he would still be able to see the Town of Palm Beach from his unit. The evidence supports a finding that while the project will undoubtedly alter the view of the water from both Trump and Flagler's property, the impact on view is not so significant as to constitute an unreasonable infringement of their riparian rights. Mr. Lemoine stated that he had a forty-foot trawler that he would like to dock in front of his property. He currently docks the boat at a marina twenty miles north of the Trump property. He prefers to bring his boat in stern first and enter slips oriented north to south. He indicated that he can drive his boat in five feet of water, but prefers six feet; however, he also testified that he has brought his boat directly up to the bulkhead in front of Trump, which is approximately a two- or three-foot depth. The witness has seen sailboats and other boats moored near the bulkhead over extended timeframes. Mr. Lemoine speculated that Trump might seek a dock, either alone or in conjunction with Flagler, but admitted that Trump has never applied for a dock permit. He stated that Trump has had discussions about the possibility of a dock over the last fifteen years and speculated that a dock plan might include anything from the purchase/lease of the City docks to a lease of Trump's riparian interests to a third party. By contrast, Trump resident and former Board member Dean Goodman indicated "the idea was to provide an amenity [for] a number of people that are in the building that are boaters." Mr. Goodman stated that he hoped to be able to have a boat in front of the building someday, but did not own a boat in Florida. Association president Dale McNulty explained that, while informal discussions have occurred regarding the possibility of a dock, no official action had been taken. Mr. McNulty characterized the dock plans as being "sort of in the land of wishful thinking." Mr. Pike, while acknowledging that both parcels would still be able to design a dock for their property, opined that the County's project unreasonably limited the size and configuration of the docks possible. Mr. Pike initially admitted that a safe navigation depth for a forty-foot boat, or even a sailboat, was four feet below mean low water (MLW), but stated that he would prefer to design a dock with an additional two-to- three feet of water below the four-foot draft to avoid propeller damage. However, Mr. Pike conceded that he has designed docks for boats in four feet below MLW and ultimately based his own calculations on an assumption of a four-foot draft and one-foot cushion, or five feet below MLW. Mr. Pike also opined that a north-south alignment for boat slips was a preferred slip orientation. Given the bathymetry in the area and the documented seagrasses, Mr. Pike estimated that twenty slips could be designed for the Flagler property, rather than the thirty-four slips provided for by the County Manatee Protection Plan. He thought that a design might accommodate thirty to thirty-two slips for Trump, rather than the forty-slips provided for by the County Manatee Protection Plan. Based on the limitation on number of slips and configurations, the witness opined that the County's project would unreasonably interfere with Trump and Flagler's ability to design a dock. He admitted, though, that the numbers derived from the County Manatee Protection Plan represent a maximum number, rather than a specified or guaranteed number. He further admitted that other agency limitations may further restrict Trump and Flagler's right to dockage. Without a permit application or plan from Trump or Flagler, County witness Robbins concluded that the most reasonable assumption was an owner-oriented facility designed for the building owners/tenants. The County introduced a graphic illustrating areas available for dock construction, with sufficient depth for 35- to 40-foot boats (-6 feet NGVD) and with no seagrasses present. Rule 18-21.004(4)(b)2. limits ownership-oriented facilities generally to forty square feet for each foot of riparian shoreline, giving Trump the ability to apply for a dock that preempted a maximum of 16,000 square feet, and Flagler a maximum of 14,000 square feet. Under the County Manatee Protection Plan, Trump would be limited to forty slips; Flagler would have the potential for thirty-four slips. Mr. Robbins testified that, in his experience, a minus five MLW is a common depth for docks, but that elevations as shallow as a minus four MLW could be used depending on the type of boats and the dock configuration. Mr. Robbins explained that, even with the County's project in place and factoring in the other limitations, Trump would still have 61,842 square feet of potential space within which to design a dock. Flagler would still have 41,481 square feet of potential space, even considering the need to retain a path for ingress and egress from the Trump parcel. A more detailed analysis of the seagrasses might make more square footage available for dock construction. Dr. De Gennarro also evaluated whether a dock could be designed to serve Trump and Flagler's parcels. The vessel owner statistics for the County indicate that at least ninety-five percent of the boats registered in the County are thirty-nine feet or less; consequently, Dr. De Gennarro focused on boats forty feet or less. Dr. De Gennarro considered the water depths and the existence of subaquatic vegetations and concluded that the graphic presented by Mr. Robbins was conservative, but still provided adequate space for both Trump and Flagler to construct appropriate dockage, allowing thirty-eight boats for Trump and thirty-two for Flagler of varying size. However, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that a dock design of forty slips for each would also be possible, depending on the size of the boats. Dr. De Gennarro proposed that a single, double-loaded parallel dock design would be a good layout for a potential docking facility in front of both Trump and Flagler's property that would be protected by the County's proposed islands, provide sufficient water depths, and provide an attractive facility. He specified, however, that the single, double-loaded parallel dock design was simply one of "many" that might work in the given space. Dr. De Gennarro explained that the existing dredge hole would not be a preferable location for either a mooring field or a dock because the deep muck-bottom would drive up the costs for either type of facility. Accordingly, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that the County's project would not foreclose or even substantially restrict the ability to locate a dock in front of Trump and Flagler’s property. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that neither the right of ingress/egress nor the right to boat in the vicinity is unreasonably infringed upon by the County's project. Trump and Flagler will continue to have reasonable access to navigation. The northerly approach preserved by the County's project will allow for boat traffic to safely navigate in the area. While the southerly and easterly approaches are eliminated by the County's plan, the evidence indicates that the two approaches were less preferable than the northerly approach because of the presence of shoals. Based on the above considerations, the County's project will not unreasonably infringe upon Trump or Flagler's qualified right to a dock. The fact that the project might preclude the design and permitting of a dock that would host very large vessels does not mean that Trump and Flagler's rights regarding docking have been unreasonably infringed. The evidence shows that substantial docking facilities of multiple configurations are still possible even if the County's project is approved. In summary, the County's application for proprietary authorization should be approved. Other Contentions All other contentions raised by Trump and Flagler have been considered and are found to be without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order approving the County's application for a consolidated ERP and consent to use sovereignty submerged lands. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Charlotte Highlands is an approximately 97-acre mobile home subdivision in Charlotte County, Florida. The roads in the subdivision are unpaved. The stormwater sheet flow in the area is from west to east. To the east of Charlotte Highlands is a 21-acre hardwood swamp, the wetlands in question in this proceeding. Stormwater from the 97-acre subdivision west of the wetlands and from the 250 acres west of the subdivision flows to the east into the wetlands. Water flows out of the wetlands to the east, from the 21-acre wetlands through a stream into Myrtle Slough. Myrtle Slough is part of the waters of the State. The County wishes to create a stormwater drainage system for Charlotte Highlands. Under the County's plan, stormwater from the 97-acre subdivision would be discharged into the wetlands owned by Desrosiers Brothers. Although the County and the Department view this project as involving only the discharge of stormwater from the 97-acre subdivision into the wetlands, the stormwater discharged would include the stormwater flowing into the 97-acre subdivision from the 250 acres located directly west of the subdivision. The County met with individuals from the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and that agency questioned the method of calculations used by the County in determining the amount of runoff into the proposed drainage system. Although new calculations of stormwater runoff volume were performed by the County, those new calculations were not provided to the Department in the County's permit application. The wetlands in question contain cypress, maples, laurel oak, bay trees, percia, dahoon holly, buttonbush, ferns, palmetto, and wet pine. Some of these species, especially the maples, cannot withstand much flooding. The outflow from the wetland into Myrtle Slough is via a natural stream. Although there are some indications that some excavation may have taken place in the stream, such as the spoil located near the cattle watering pond near the mouth of the wetlands, water flows from the wetlands to Myrtle Slough through a natural watercourse with no man-made connections. The hydroperiod is the length of time water stays in a wetlands before it drains out of the wetlands. This determines the water level, the critical factor affecting a wetland's ability to perform its vital functions. If the rate or volume of either the inflow or outflow of a wetlands is altered enough, the water level changes, usually with adverse environmental consequences. Certain species of flora will die off if the water level rises too much. Others require high water levels for their survival. In order to assess the effects of a proposed alteration to such a system, one must determine the existing high pool and low pool. Donald H. Ross established the high and low pools for the County. He went to the wetlands and observed the stain, rack, and lichen lines on tree trunks. He also observed the cypress buttress. Ross also determined the invert of the stream, the elevation at which water first starts to run in it. Based solely on this site visit, the County determined the high pool in the wetlands to be at 14.8 NGVD and the low pool to be at 14.1 NGVD. No rainfall data was collected and analyzed; no hydrological studies were performed; no observations were made over a period of time. There are two aspects of this project which can alter the hydroperiod of the wetlands. The first involves the amount of water entering the wetlands, and the second involves the amount of water leaving the wetlands. Currently, runoff from the 97-acre subdivision as well as the 250-acre area west of the subdivision drains toward the wetlands. The County intends to pave the roads in the subdivision and construct a system of swales. Although the paving will increase the impervious surface by an insignificant amount, the runoff will be delivered to the wetlands faster. Accordingly, peaks in water level will occur more suddenly with increased water arriving more quickly. Stormwatr is discharged into wetlands to take advantage of the pollutant-filtering functions of wetlands vegetation. To realize this function, the water must be held in the wetlands for a certain amount of time. The County intends to accomplish this by the installation of a control structure, known as a weir, which will regulate the amount of water leaving the wetlands. The County proposes to construct a weir on the stream between the wetlands and Myrtle Slough approximately 100 feet from the mouth of the wetlands. The top of the weir for this system will be set at 14.8 NGVD, the high pool established by Ross for the County. The weir will also have an orifice set at 14.1 NGVD, the low pool established by Ross and the County, which will allow a constant flow of water out of the wetlands at that elevation. The control structure will cause water to remain in the wetlands for a longer period of time, which will raise the water level in the wetlands by some amount. In order to accurately predict this amount, it is necessary to determine the storage capacity of the wetlands. The County calculated that a storage capacity of 177,761 cubic feet would be required for the wetlands to contain the first one-half inch of rainfall from the 97-acre subdivision. No calculations have been made as to the storage capacity required for the wetlands to contain the first one inch of rainfall from the 97-acre subdivision as well as the 250-acre area that drains into the subdivision which then drains toward the wetlands. The County has failed to establish the hydroperiod of the wetlands. Having failed to establish the hydroperiod of the wetlands, the impact of its project on the wetlands cannot be determined. As an alternative to this project the County considered rerouting the stormwater away from the wetlands. Diverting necessary water from the wetlands would result in the desiccation of the wetlands. However, an increased water flow if not properly discharged would likely result in an over impoundment of the wetlands. Either approach would have an adverse impact on a productive wetland system, such as the wetlands involved here, and a change in the vegetation would adversely impact the wetland's ability to treat the discharge. The treatment of stormwater in wetlands is a relatively new technique. Although some projects have been approved in other parts of the State, projects such as that proposed by the County have not been used yet in southwest Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Charlotte County's application for a wetlands stormwater discharge facility permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 8th day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0243 Although Charlotte County filed a document called Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the Evidence, rather than setting forth any findings of fact the County simply makes what it calls a Comparison of Evidence on Issue 1 and a Comparison of Evidence on Issue 2, listing under each heading excerpts from the testimony of each of the witnesses in this proceeding. Accordingly, no rulings are made herein on Charlotte County's proposed findings of fact since it is determined that there are none. Desrosiers Brothers' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-9, 15, 17, 24, 26, 27, and 38 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Desrosiers Brothers' proposed findings of fact numbered 10-12, 19-21, 23, 25, 29-37, 40, and 41 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or recitations of the testimony. Desrosiers Brothers' proposed findings of fact numbered 13, 14, 16, 18, 22, 28, and 39 have been rejected as being unnecessary or subordinate to the issues under consideration herein. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, 14 in part, 15, 16 in part, 17 in part, 18-22, 27, and 28 in part have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 5 and 6 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or recitations of the testimony. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 16 in part, and 17 in part have been rejected as being unnecessary or subordinate to the issues under consideration herein. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 4, and 7-13 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 14 in part, 23-26, and 28 in part have been rejected as not being supported by the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Philip J. Jones, Esquire 201 West Marion Avenue Suite 301 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Matthew G. Minter, Esquire 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094 Richard Grosso, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On September 13, 1977, SFWMD advised Coquina by letter that "[a]t its September 8, 1977 meeting the Governing Board of this District gave Conceptual Approval of [Coquina's] surface water management plan . . . subject to the four special conditions found on page 15 of the District's staff report. . . [and an] additional special condition Joint exhibit No. 5. The first special condition found on page 15 of the District's staff report requires that complete construction plans be submitted, including "supporting calculations for all design elements not already submitted and any other plans necessary to assure adherence to the concept plan." Joint exhibit No. 2, page 15. The plan approved by SFWMD is designed to lower the water table in a 22 square mile area northwest of Lake Okeechobee in Okeechobee County. In its natural state, the land lies under water for part of the year. The corporate owner of the land has plans to subdivide it and sell residential lots, beginning with the four contiguous sections as to which the present application for a construction permit has been made. These four sections (phase I) lie north and south of each other in the western portion of the larger tract. The proposed construction would consist of digging ditches or swales paralleling existing and planned roads; building intersecting collector swales running north and south; installing ditch checks where swales intersect; dredging a retention pond into which the collector swales could empty at the south end of the phase I tract; digging an outfill ditch to channel water leaving the retention area for Ash Slough; and erecting a weir, between the retention area and the slough. Culverts through the weir would be equipped "with standard flash board risers in which the water level is regulated by stop logs which can be added or removed," Coquina's exhibit No. 1, p. 10, and the culverts would ordinarily serve as the route by which water from the retention area would reach Ash Slough. Under extremely wet conditions, however, water from the retention area could overflow the weir. The intervening petitioners own land on Ash Slough downstream from the retention area and adjacent to the southern boundary of the phase I tract. No formal studies of the likely effects of the proposed construction downstream were undertaken by Coquina or by SFWMD in evaluating Coquina's application. The surface water management plan given conceptual approval by SFWMD provides: The quantity of runoff flowing to the south through existing sloughs will be controlled to protect the downstream areas against flooding whereas at the present there is no control. The amount flowing to the existing sloughs to the south during the 25 yr. design storm will be limited to the amount flowing to those sloughs before any development takes place. Lesser storms will be more completely retained on the property. Controlled discharge will be provided from retention areas to the existing sloughs for the purpose of nourishing these streams. Coquina's exhibit No. 1, p. 1. (Emphasis supplied) Since no records of the amount of discharge to Ash Slough "before any development" are in existence, certain assumptions and estimates were made. One such assumption on which the application for construction permit proceeds is that the phase I tract all drains to the south, in its present state. In fact, some of the water now leaving the phase I tract travels in a westerly direction and never enters Ash Slough, at least under some weather conditions. If the proposed construction is accomplished, the phase I tract would all drain to the south through Ash Slough. As things now stand, a significant amount of water leaves the phase I tract by evapotranspiration. If the water table were lowered two and a half feet, which is what Coquina proposes, less water would leave the phase I tract by evapotranspiration, leaving more water to flow over the ground. In estimating the quantity of the anticipated discharge to Ash Slough, if the proposed construction takes place, it is necessary to take into account drainage onto the phase I tract from adjoining lands. Coquina has failed to furnish plans and supporting calculations sufficient to insure that the proposed construction will not increase the amount of flow to Ash Slough during the 25 year design storm. Increased flow to Ash Slough would aggravate downstream landowners' drainage problems, unless the slough could handle the additional flow, a question which the application does not address. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 34O So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which is attached as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That SFWMD deny Coquina's application for construction permit. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX Paragraph one of intervening Bass petitioners' proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except that the evidence did not demonstrate that downstream landowners would in fact be harmed. Paragraphs two, three, four, five, six and seven of intervening Bass petitioners' proposed findings of fact have been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. Paragraph one of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except for the date of the application. Paragraphs two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and thirteen of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact have been adopted in substance, insofar as relevant. Paragraph ten of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact stated a conclusion of law, in part. While "testimony was presented that the construction of Phase I would have no substantial adverse affect [sic] on surrounding properties," the evidence as a whole did not establish this fact. Paragraphs eleven and twelve of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact have not been adopted because they were not established by the evidence, except for subparagraph eleven (f), which was proven. COPIES FURNISHED: John Henry Wheeler, Esquire South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Robert Birenbaum, President Viking Communities Corporation (Coquina Water Management District) 123 Northeast 70 Street Miami, Florida 33138 Kyle S. Van Landingham, Esquire County Attorney Okeechobee County Courthouse Okeechobee, Florida 33472 Andrew B. Jackson, Esquire J.C. Bass & Bass Ranch, Inc. Post Office Box 488 Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Emerson Allsworth, Esquire 1177 Southeast Third Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mr. Bob Wittenberg Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dr. Patrick M. McCaffrey Kissimmee Coordinating Council 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George Stansbury Central Florida Regional Planning Council Post Office Box 2089 Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue The issue is whether the City's applications for an individual stormwater permit and a noticed general environmental resource permit for Phase 1A of the proposed Hogtown Creek Greenway should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In these two cases, Respondent, City of Gainesville (City), seeks the issuance of a stormwater system management permit (stormwater permit) to construct a 2,000-foot long asphaltic trail/boardwalk, a parking facility and associated improvements for Phase 1A of the Hogtown Creek Greenway project in the north central portion of the City. That matter is docketed as Case No. 97-2845. The City also seeks the issuance of a noticed general environmental resource permit (NGP) to construct 481 square feet of piling supported structures over wetlands or surface waters for the same project. That matter has been assigned Case No. 97-2846. Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), is the regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving the requested permits. Petitioner, Greenspace Preservation Association, Inc., is a not-for-profit Florida corporation primarily composed of persons who own real property adjacent to the route proposed by the City, as well as local environmental interests. Petitioners, Frank Ward, Sal Locascio, Frederick P. Peterkin, and Harold M. Stahmer, are individuals who own real property adjacent to the route proposed by the City for the Greenway. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners are substantially affected by the District's proposed action and thus have standing to initiate these cases. On March 28, 1997, the City filed applications for a stormwater permit and a NPG for Phase IA of the Hogtown Creek Greenway project. After conducting a review of the applications, including an on-site visit to the area, in May 1997, the District proposed to issue the requested permits. On June 9, 1997, Petitioners timely filed a Petition for Initiation of Formal Proceedings as to both intended actions. As amended and then refined by stipulation, Petitioners generally allege that, as to the stormwater permit, the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project meets the permitting requirements of the District; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the stormwater system will not cause violations of state water quality standards; the City has failed to provide reasonable asurance that the project satisfies the District's minimum required design features; and the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the stormwater system is capable of being effectively operated and maintained by the City. As to the NPG, Petitioners generally allege that the piling supported structure is not less than 1,000 square feet; the jurisdictional wetlands are greater than the area shown on the plans submitted by the City; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system will not significantly impede navigation; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system does not violate state water quality standards; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system does not impede the conveyance of a watercourse in a manner that would affect off-site flooding; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system will not cause drainage of wetlands; and the City failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system does not adversely impact aquatic or wetland dependent listed species. Respondents deny each of the allegations and aver that all requirements for issuance of the permits have been met. In addition, the City has requested attorney's fees and costs under Section 120.595(1)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), on the theory that these actions were filed for an improper purpose. A General Description of the Project The Hogtown Creek Greenway is a long-term project that will eventually run from Northwest 39th Street southward some seven miles to the Kanapaha Lake/Haile Sink in southwest Gainesville. These cases involve only Phase 1A of that project, which extends approximately one-half mile. This phase consists of the construction of a 2,000-foot long asphaltic concrete trail/boardwalk, a timber bridge and boardwalk, a parking facility, and associated improvements. The trail will extend from the Loblolly Environmental Facility located at Northwest 34th Street and Northwest 5th Avenue, to the intersection of Northwest 8th Avenue and Northwest 31st Drive. The trail will have a typical width of ten feet. For the majority of its length, the trail will be constructed of asphaltic concrete overlying a limerock base, and it will generally lie at the existing grade and slope away from the creek. Besides the trail, additional work involves the repaving of Northwest 5th Avenue with the addition of a curb and gutter, the construction of an entrance driveway, paved and grassed parking areas, and sidewalks at the Loblolly Environmental Facility, and the widening and addition of a new turn lane and pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of Northwest 8th Avenue and Northwest 31st Drive. The Stormwater Permit Generally The entire Phase IA project area lies within the Hogtown Creek 10-year floodplain. It also lies within the Hogtown Creek Hydrologic Basin, which basin includes approximately 21 square miles. The project area for the proposed stormwater permit is 4.42 acres. Water quality criteria Phase IA of the Greenway will not result in discharges into surface groundwater that cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards. When a project meets the applicable design criteria under the District's stormwater rule, there is a presumption that the project will not cause a violation of state water quality standards. There are two dry retention basins associated with the project. Basin 1 is located at the cul-de-sac of Northwest 5th Avenue and will capture and retain the stormwater runoff from the new and reconstructed impervious areas at the Loblolly Facility. Basin 2 is located at the parking area and will capture and retain stormwater runoff at the existing building and proposed grass parking area. Under the stormwater rule, the presumptive criteria for retention basins require that the run-off percolate out of the basin bottom within 72 hours. The calculations performed by the City's engineer show that the two retention basins will recover within that timeframe. In making these calculations, the engineer used the appropriate percolation rate of ten inches per hour. Even using the worst case scenario with a safety factor of twenty and a percolation rate of one-half inch per hour, the two retention basins will still recover within 72 hours. The presumptive criteria for retention basins require that the basin store a volume equal to one inch of run-off over the drainage area or 1.25 inches of run-off over the impervious area plus one-half inch of run-off over the drainage area. The calculations performed by the City's engineer show that the two retention basins meet the District's volume requirements for retention systems. An applicant is not required to utilize the presumptive design criteria, but instead may use an alternative design if the applicant can show, based on calculations, tests, or other information, that the alternative design will not cause a violation of state water quality standards. As a general rule, the District applies its stormwater rule so that water quality treatment is not required for projects or portions of projects that do not increase pollutant loadings. This includes linear bicycle/pedestrian trails. The City's proposed trail will not be a source of pollutants. The City will install signs at both entrances to the trail to keep out motorized vehicles. Except for emergency and maintenance vehicles, motorized vehicles will not be permitted on the trail. The infrequent use by emergency or maintenance vehicles will not be sufficient to create water quality concerns. The construction of a treatment system to treat the stormwater from the trail would provide little benefit and would only serve to unnecessarily impact natural areas. Although treatment of the stormwater run-off from the trail portion of the project is not required under District rules, the run-off will receive treatment in the vegetated upland buffer adjacent to the trail. The District's proposed other condition number 3 will require the City to plant vegetation in unvegetated and disturbed areas in the buffer. This will reduce the likelihood of erosion or sedimentation problems in the area of the trail. Although disputed at hearing, it is found that the City's engineer used the appropriate Manning coefficient in the calculations regarding the buffer. Even without a vegetated buffer, run-off coming from the bicycle trail will not violate state water quality standards. The City will install appropriate erosion and sediment controls. These include siltation barriers along the entire length of both sides of the proposed trail prior to commencing construction. Such barriers will not allow silt or other material to flow through, over, or under them. The City will also place hay bales and any other silt fencing necessary to solve any erosion problem that may occur during construction. In addition, the permit will require an inspection and any necessary repairs to the siltation barriers at the end of each day of construction. Saturation of the limerock bed under the paved portion of the trail is not expected to cause a problem because heavy vehicles will not regularly use the trail. The trail portion of the project can be adequately maintained to avoid deterioration. Sensitive Karst Areas Basin criteria The two proposed dry retention basins for Phase 1A are located within the District's Sensitive Karst Areas Basin. They include all of the minimum design features required by the District to assure adequate treatment of the stormwater before it enters the Floridan aquifer and to preclude the formation of solution pipe sinkholes in the stormwater system. There will be a minimum of three feet of unconsolidated soil material between the surface of the limestone bedrock and the bottom and sides of the two retention basins. The appropriate mechanism for determining the depth of limestone is to do soil borings. The soil borings performed by the City show that there is at least three feet of unconsolidated material between the bottom of the basins and any limerock where the borings were taken. In other words, limestone would not be expected to be within three feet of the bottom of either basin. Based on the soil boring results, the seasonal high water table is at least six feet below ground level. The depth of the two retention basins will be less than ten feet. Indeed, the depth of the basins will be as shallow as possible and will have a horizontal bottom with no deep spots. To make the retention basins any larger would require clearing more land. A large shallow basin with a horizontal bottom results in a lower hydraulic head and therefore is less potential for a sinkhole to form. Before entering the basins, stormwater will sheet flow across pavement and into a grass swale, thereby providing some dispersion of the volume. Finally, the two retention basin side slopes will be vegetated. Special condition number 7 provides that if limestone is encountered during excavation of a basin, the City must over- excavate the basin and backfill with three feet of unconsolidated material below the bottom of the basin. Drainage and flood protection Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, the project will not adversely affect drainage or flood protection on surrounding properties. The trail will be constructed generally at existing grade. Because the trail will be constructed at existing grade, the net volume of fill necessary for Phase 1A is approximately zero. Therefore, there will not be a measurable increase in the amount of runoff leaving the site after construction, and the trail will not result in an increase in off-site discharges. District rules require that the proposed post- development peak rate of discharge from a site not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge for the mean annual storm only for projects that exceed fifty percent impervious surface. The proposed project has less than fifty percent impervious surface. Even though it is not required, the City has demonstrated that the post-development rate of discharge will not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge. Both basins will retain the entire mean annual storm so that the post-development rate of discharge is zero. Even during a 100-year storm event, the retention basins willl not discharge. Therefore, there will not be any increase in floodplain elevations during the 10, 25, or 100-year storm events from the proposed project. Operation and maintenance entity requirements The applicable requirements of Chapter 40C-42, Florida Administrative Code, regarding operation and maintenance, have been met by the applicant. The City proposes itself as the permanent operation and maintenance entity for the project. This is permissible under District regulations. The duration for the operation and maintenance phase of the permit is perpetual. The City has adequate resources and staff to maintain the phase 1A portion of the project. The public works department will maintain the stormwater management system out of the City's utility fund. The City provides periodic inspections of all of its stormwater systems. These inspections are paid for out of the collected stormwater fees. The City will also conduct periodic inspections of the project area, and the two retention basins will be easily accessed by maintenance vehicles. The City will be required to submit an as-built certification, signed and sealed by a professional engineer, once the project is constructed. Monthly inspections of the system must be conducted looking for any sinkholes or solution cavities that may be forming in the basins. If any are observed, the City is required to notify the District and repair the cavity or sinkhole. Once the system is constructed, the City will be required to submit an inspection report biannually notifying the District that the system is operating and functioning in accordance with the permitted design. If the system is not functioning properly, the applicant must remediate the system. The City will be required to maintain the two retention basins by mowing the side slopes, repairing any erosion on the side slopes, and removing sediment that accumulates in the basins. Mowing will be done at least six times per year. The City will stabilize the slopes and bottom areas of the basins to prevent erosion. The City has a regular maintenance schedule for stormwater facilities. The project will be included within the City's regular maintenance program. The City has budgeted approximately $80,000.00 for maintenance of the trail and vegetated buffer. Also, it has added new positions in its budget that will be used to maintain and manage the Greenway system. Finally, City staff will conduct daily inspections of the Phase 1A trail looking for problems with the vegetated buffer, erosion problems along the trail, and sediment and debris in the retention basin. If the inspections reveal any problems, the staff will take immediate action to correct them. The Noticed General Environmental Resource Permit Generally By this application, the City seeks to construct 481 square feet of piling supported structures over wetlands or surface waters. The proposed structures include a 265 square foot timber bridge over an un-vegetated flow channel, which connects a borrow area to Possum Creek, and a 216 square foot boardwalk over two small wetland areas located south of the flow channel. None of the pilings for the bridge or boardwalk will be in wetlands, and no construction will take place in Hogtown or Possum Creeks. The paved portion of the trail will not go through wetlands, and there will be no dredging or filling in wetlands. The receiving waters for the project are Hogtown and Possum Creeks. Both are Class III waters. Hogtown Creek originates in north central Gainesville and flows southwest to Kanapaha Lake/Haile Sink in southwest Gainesville. Possum Creek originates in northwest Gainesville and flows southeast to its confluence with Hogtown Creek south of the proposed bridge structure. Wetlands The total area of the proposed bridge and boardwalk over surface water or wetlands is approximately 481 square feet. The wetland delineation shown on the City's Exhibit 5A includes all of the areas in the project area considered to be wetlands under the state wetland delineation methodology. The United State Army Corps of Engineers' wetland line includes more wetlands than the District wetland line. The former wetland line was used to determine the area of boardwalk and bridge over wetlands. Even using this line, however, the total area of boardwalk over surface waters or wetlands is approximately 481 square feet and is therefore less than 1,000 square feet. Navigation The proposed system does not significantly impede navigation. Further, the structures will span a wetland area and an un-vegetated flow channel, both of which are non-navigable. In fact, the flow channel generally exhibits little or no flow except after periods of rainfall. Water quality The construction material that will be used for the bridge and boardwalk will not generate any pollutants. Morever, chemical cleaners will not be used on those structures. Silt fences will be used and vegetation will be planted in the vicinity of the bridge and boardwalk to prevent erosion and sedimentation problems. The amount of erosion from drip that comes off the boardwalk will be minimal. Therefore, the bridge and boardwalk will not cause a violation of state water quality standards. Off-site flooding The project will not impede conveyance of any stream, river, or other water course which would increase off-site flooding. The structures will completely span the wetland areas and flow channel, and no part of the structures, including the pilings, will lie within any water or wetland areas including the flow channel. There will be a span of 2.5 to 3 feet from the horizontal members of the bridge and boardwalk down to the ground surface which will allow water to pass through unobstructed. Further, there will not be any cross ties or horizontal obstructions on the lower portions of the boardwalk or bridge pilings. Further, due to the spacing of the pilings, the boardwalk and bridge will not trap sufficient sediment such as leaves to impede the conveyance of the flow channel. Therefore, conveyance through the flow channel will not be affected by the structures. Because the boardwalk and bridge are not over Hogtown or Possum Creeks, they will not cause any obstruction to the conveyance of the creeks. Aquatic and wetland dependent listed species The project will not adversely affect any aquatic or wetland dependent listed species. These species are defined by District rule as aquatic or wetland dependent species listed in Chapter 39-27, Florida Administrative Code, or 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 17. No such species are known to exist in the project area, and none are expected to exist in the location and habitat type of the project area. Therefore, contrary to Petitioners' assertions, there are no listed salamander, frog, turtle, or lizard species known to occur within the Hogtown Creek basin. Although it is possible that the box turtle may be found in the project area, it is not an aquatic or wetland dependent listed species. One baby American alligator (between two and three feet in length) was observed in the borrow pit area of the project on September 11, 1997. Except for this sighting, no other listed animal species have been observed in the project area. As to the alligator, the only area in which it could nest would be in the existing excavated borrow pit, and none of the proposed construction will take place in that area. More than likely, the alligator had walked into the area from Clear Lake, Kanapaha Prairie, or Lake Alice. The proposed structures will not affect the movement of the alligator nor its feeding habits. Drainage of wetlands Because the boardwalk and bridge are elevated structures over waters and wetlands, and the City has not proposed to construct ditches or other drainage systems, the proposed system will not cause drainage of the wetlands. Coral/macro-marine algae/grassbeds The proposed system is not located in, on, or over coral communities, macro/marine algae, or a submerged grassbed community. D. Were the Petitions Filed for an Improper Purpose? Prior to the filing of their petitions, Petitioners did not consult with experts, and they prepared no scientific investigations. Their experts were not retained until just prior to hearing. Petitioners are citizens who have genuine concerns with the project. They are mainly longtime residents of the area who fear that the Greenway will not be properly maintained by the City; it will increase flooding in the area; it will cause water quality violations; and it will attract thousands of persons who will have unimpeded access to the back yards of nearby residents. Although these concerns were either not substantiated at hearing or are irrelevant to District permitting criteria, they were nonetheless filed in good faith and not for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order approving the applications of the City of Gainesville and issuing the requested permits. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 19th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Samuel A. Mutch, Esquire 2790 Northwest 43rd Street Suite 100, Meridien Centre Gainesville, Florida 32606 Jennifer B. Springfield, Esquire Mary Jane Angelo, Esquire Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Richard R. Whiddon, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1110 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1110
