The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates provided reasonable assurance that a modification to a conceptual surface water management permit complies with the permit criteria contained in statutes and rules.
Findings Of Fact Background This case involves a 900-acre parcel in the Loxahatchee Slough, west of the Florida Turnpike in Palm Beach County (County). Although the property occupies part of a slough, all of the wetlands in this case are isolated wetlands. Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates (Applicant) owns the south 503 acres, Petitioner owns the north 287 acres, and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (Village) owns the remaining 115 acres, which abut the southwest boundary of the north parcel. The acreages do not total 900 acres because the numbers are approximate. The 900-acre parcel is generally bounded on the south by Okeechobee Boulevard and the north and east by the M-1 canal. The west boundary of the south part of the parcel adjoins a residential development known as Loxahatchee Groves, and the 115-acre parcel adjoins a County-owned preserve of at least 600 acres. Applicant’s land is undeveloped except for some landclearing. Petitioner’s land is partly developed, mostly in the south next to the boundary with Applicant’s land. The Village's 115 acres are a preserve, divided equally between wetlands and uplands. On February 11, 1988, Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) issued surface water management (SWM) permit No. 50-00618-S-02 to Royal Palm Homes, Inc. for conceptual approval of a SWM system serving a residential development on the 900-acre parcel (1988 Permit). References to the Original Developer shall include Royal Palm Homes, Inc., its agents, lenders, and assigns, except for Petitioner and Applicant. The permitted development, which was known as the Royal Palm Homes PUD, comprises single-family and multifamily residences, wetland preserve areas, two 18-hole golf courses, and a park area. On August 3, 1994, Applicant filed SWM application number 940803-6 to modify the 1988 Permit to show the change in ownership and obtain conceptual approval of a modification to the permitted SWM system. The application was not complete when the new Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules replaced the old Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) permit rules. On May 24, 1996, the District transmitted the staff report, which proposed the issuance of a permit modification. On June 13, 1996, the District approved the issuance of the proposed permit modification. On the same date, Petitioner filed its petition challenging the proposed agency action. Permits The first relevant SWM permit for the 900-acre parcel involved a larger parcel that includes the 900-acre parcel. On September 14, 1978, the District issued a two-page permit authorizing the “construction of a water management system serving 2073 acres of residential lands by waterways discharging into canal C-51.” This 1978 permit, which is identified as number 50-00618-S, contains a special condition calling for a minimum finished floor elevation of 18.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The next permit is the 1988 Permit, which is a substantial modification to the 1978 permit. The 1988 Permit covers only the previously described 900 acres and, as modified, currently remains in effect. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of two large wetlands in the north parcel, just north of the 115-acre preserve; one wetland is about 30 acres and the other is about ten acres. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of no other wetlands in the north parcel, but, in addition to the wetlands in the 115-acre preserve, the 1988 Permit requires the preservation of several much smaller wetlands in the south parcel. The staff report for the 1988 Permit divides into three basins the drainage area for the 900-acre parcel: a north basin of 98.9 acres, a central basin of 525.7 acres, and a south basin of 270.8 acres. The staff report states that basin runoff will pass through a system of inlets and culverts into a series of interconnected lakes, from which, through control structures, the runoff will pass into the M-1 canal and eventually into the C-51 canal. The staff report notes that the control elevations will be 17.25 feet NGVD for the north basin, 17.55 feet NGVD for the central basin, and 17.75 feet NGVD for the south basin. Under the discussion of environmental impacts, the staff report observes that the 1978 permit proposed for protection only 30 acres of wetlands among the 281 acres of isolated wetlands on the site. The staff report notes that “extensive” melaleuca invasion has taken place since the 1978 permit and only 160 acres of wetlands remain in “relatively good” condition, with much of this subject to melaleuca encroachment. Due to the “extensive seed source” and “seasonal drying of the wetlands,” the staff report predicts eventual melaleuca dominance of the “entire site.” The staff report asserts that the proposed development plan includes the protection of about 100 acres of the “best quality wetlands,” plus eight acres of wetlands created in conjunction with the golf courses and 15 acres of wetlands created as littoral zones in conjunction with the lakes to be constructed. The staff report calls a program “to eradicate all melaleuca from the site” “[t]he major environmental feature” of the proposed development plan. But this major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit is presently in jeopardy. One major component of the present case is that, following the conveyances of the three parcels by the Original Developer, the District has evidently concluded that no one is responsible to perform certain obligations under the 1988 Permit and no remedies are available for the nonperformance of these obligations. It appears that these conclusions are largely driven by the vagueness of the plan to eradicate the melaleuca. This plan is called the "Melaleuca Eradication Plan." The Melaleuca Eradication Plan is incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan, which is dated December 11, 1987, recounts that the Original Developer and regulatory bodies agreed that the melaleuca should be “eradicated and a program for this should be developed and included as a part of the permit application.” The plan states that the eradication plan will cover the entire 900- acre site with the Original Developer performing the “initial . . . program” on the entire site, including the 115-acre preserve to be deeded to the Village. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan calls for the Original Developer to create a bonded authority to conduct the “ten-year melaleuca eradication program.” The program is phased to coincide with the projected 10-year buildout of the 3000-unit parcel. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan describes in detail the three phases of the program and exactly how the Original Developer will proceed to remove the melaleuca and restore wetlands by planting native wetland species in disturbed areas. The plan promises a yearly inspection followed by hand-removal of any seedlings discovered on the site. This last phase will terminate ten years after commencement of the first phase. A “Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program” is also incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which is dated December 8, 1987, states that Dr. Dwight Goforth performed a wetlands survey of the 900-acre site in 1985 and divided wetlands into three categories based on their quality. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance promises the preservation of 112.71 acres of wetlands comprising 98.81 acres of “large wetlands totally preserved” and nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres that will be “partially preserved.” Also, the program will create golf course wetlands of 6.93 acres and littoral-zone wetlands around the lakes of 15 acres. Thus, the program summarizes, the “total wetland acreage preserved, enhanced and created will [be] 134.64 acres.” The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program describes a three-year monitoring program using transects to assist in the vegetative mapping of the site. The program also promises semiannual observations of birds, small rodents, and larger mammals using the wetlands and adjacent preserved uplands, as well as semiannual sampling for fish, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program outlines a plan to remove melaleuca and control algae buildup in the lakes. The program promises to contain algae through the use of “biological controls” and, when needed, hand-raking. The program also assures that the Original Developer will use a “conservative fertilization program” for the golf course and landscaped areas to reduce eutrophication in the created lakes. On February 18, 1988, the District issued its conceptual approval of the 1988 Permit. Among the special conditions of the 1988 Permit are Special Condition 15, which requires wetland monitoring and maintenance in accordance with the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, and Special Condition 16, which requires melaleuca removal in accordance with the Melaleuca Eradication Plan. Also, Special Condition 17 requires low berms around protected or created wetlands, including littoral zones, to protect against sheetflow runoff from the golf course or other areas of intense development. The references in the preceding paragraphs to the responsibilities of the "Original Developer" imply greater clarity than is present in the Melaleuca Eradication Plan or Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The passive voice predominates in both these documents, so it is sometimes difficult to determine on whom a particular responsibility falls. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan states clearly that "[the Original Developer] will conduct the initial melaleuca eradication on the entire site including the dedicated park area [i.e., the 115 acres]." The next sentence of the plan contemplates the conveyance of the 115 acres to the County. But, after these clear provisions, the Melaleuca Eradication Plan lapses into the passive voice almost invariably. The next two sentences read, "A bonded authority will be created to conduct the ten-year melaleuca eradication program" and "The eradication program will be carried out through a bonded agreement with the [Original] Developer to remove the melaleuca . . .." Alluding to the several phases of melaleuca eradication, the plan states only "[t]he eradication program will be completed in stages " Only two other sentences establishing responsibility for melaleuca eradication identify the responsible party. The end of the plan states that the "bonded authority responsible for initial eradication clearance will likewise provide a yearly inspection." One of the final sentences of the plan adds: "the bonding authority's crew will hand remove entire seedlings found on site." The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program is similar except that it does not once name the entity responsible for the monitoring and maintenance duties or hiring the firm or individual to conduct the actual work. The two special conditions incorporating these two documents likewise are in the passive voice, implying only that the responsibility belongs to the Original Developer. Given the vagueness of the melaleuca-eradication and wetlands-maintenance documents, it is not surprising that they fail entirely to address the issue whether these responsibilities run with the land, remain the responsibility of the Original Developer, or, for the eradication of melaleuca, remain the duty of the "bonded authority," if the Original Developer ever created such an entity, which appears highly doubtful. The documents likewise do not disclose the penalties for noncompliance. On June 16, 1988, the District issued a modification to the 1988 Permit for the construction and operation of a 110.9-acre residential development in Phase I, which occupies the central basin. On October 1, 1988, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) issued the Original Developer a permit to destroy 164 acres of wetlands on the 900-acre parcel. Special conditions of the 1988 Army Corps permit require the preservation of "115 acres of high quality wetlands," the creation of 18 acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral shelf, and the implementation of a "Melaleuca Eradication Program," which is the same program as is incorporated in the 1988 Permit. The 1988 Army Corps permit contains an attachment dated October 24, 1987. This attachment identifies the protected wetlands as the two large wetlands in the north parcel totaling about 40 acres, 58 acres in the 115-acre preserve, and 53.5 acres in the south parcel. The 1988 Army Corps permit protects several wetlands in the south parcel, including wetland numbers 14 (3.04 acres), 16 (1.6 acres), 23 (0.53 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 44 (0.8 acres), 29 (1.08 acres), and 46 (3.0 acres). These wetlands, which total 12.65 acres, are seven of the nine wetlands partially preserved in the 1988 Permit, although some of the acreages vary from those preserved in the 1988 Permit. Unlike the District's permits (except for the subject proposed permit modification), the 1988 Army Corps permit addresses conveyances by the developer. The 1988 Army Corps permit states: "If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization." Below the signature line of the 1988 Army Corps permit is language stating: When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below. On March 1, 1989, the Original Developer conveyed the 115-acre preserve to the Village, which later leased the preserve to the County. The Original Developer had not eradicated the melaleuca at the time of the conveyance, nor has anyone since done so. On August 17, 1990, water elevations in the wetlands in Phase I reached 19.4 feet NGVD, washing out construction pads, roads, and in-ground utilities. On September 7, 1990, the District issued a stop-work request because the SWM system was not working as required. On September 28, 1990, the District approved interim measures to preserve the wetland hydroperiod and allow for wetland overflow. These measures include berming the residential areas in Phase I/Plat I adjacent to wetlands. On June 13, 1991, the District approved additional modifications to the 1988 Permit and the construction and operations permit for Phase I and issued a conceptual approval for works in the north and central basins. The revisions to the conceptual approval include adding two control structures to the north wetland that connect to the water management system in the north basin and adding a berm around the smaller of the two preserved wetlands in the north parcel. The construction approval was for a perimeter berm along the south wetland and park areas. On June 24, 1992, the District issued a staff report recommending issuance of another modification of the 1988 Permit for the conceptual approval of a SWM system to serve the 900-acre parcel and approval of construction and operation of a SWM system to isolate and control the existing onsite wetlands and revise the control structure for the central basin. The staff report explains that this modification proposes berming the wetlands to the 100-year, three-day peak elevation. The staff report notes that the wetlands basin consists of 295.18 acres of wetlands, including 155.85 acres of “wetlands/uplands.” The staff report notes that the north basin contains 107.41 acres of “good quality wet prairie wetlands” with “minimal” melaleuca encroachment. The staff report restates that the purpose of the modification is to berm all of the wetlands and uplands not planned for development. Special Condition 19 requires the Original Developer to dedicate as conservation and common areas in deed restrictions the “wetland preservation/mitigation areas, upland buffer zones, and/or upland preservation areas," so that these areas are the “perpetual responsibility” of a named property owners’ association. Special Condition 22 states that “a wetland monitoring and maintenance program” and “a melaleuca eradication program” “shall be implemented,” but the condition does not expressly state by whom. Special Condition 22 requires that the work implementing these programs conform to these “approved environmental programs as outlined in the [1988 Permit].” Special Condition 25 provides that, on submittal of an application for construction approval in the south basin (Phase II), the "permittee shall submit a detailed wetland construction mitigation, monitoring and maintenance plan.” In evaluating the plan for approval, the District shall apply the “environmental criteria in effect at the time of construction permit application.” Although the approval of the District is not attached to the staff report, the District approved the June 24, 1992, staff report and proposed permit. The 1992 permit modification did not address the issue of who was responsible for melaleuca eradication after the sale of the property. On November 10, 1993, the staff report accompanying another request for a permit modification restates the special conditions of earlier permit modifications. Special Condition 23 restates the requirement that a melaleuca eradication program “shall be implemented,” again not stating by whom. Special Condition 23 now requires the completion of the melaleuca eradication program by February 25, 1994. The omission of a referenced exhibit to the permit from the exhibit filed in this case prevents a determination that this is the same as the Melaleuca Eradication Plan incorporated in the 1988 Permit and restated in the 1992 modification, although it probably is. In any event, Special Condition 23 concludes in another sentence lacking a stated or implied subject: “Maintenance of the preserved wetlands and berm planting areas shall be conducted in perpetuity to ensure that the conservation areas are maintained free from exotic vegetation (Brazilian pepper, Australian pine and melaleuca) . . ..” Although the record does not contain the written approval of the District to the staff report, the District approved the staff report dated November 10, 1993. On November 12, 1993, the Original Developer conveyed by special warranty deed the north to Petitioner. The deed is subject only to "easements, declarations, restrictions and reservations of record . . .." The record does not provide recording information for the deed. The Original Developer probably conveyed the south parcel to Applicant in the same fashion and at the same approximate time. Almost five months later, on March 29, 1994, the Army Corps issued another permit for the 900-acre parcel. Although the Original Developer had conveyed at least the north parcel, the Army Corps issued the 1994 permit to the Original Developer. The 1994 Army Corps permit authorizes the destruction of 158 acres. The general conditions governing transfers are the same as those in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The special conditions of the 1994 Army Corps permit require the permittee to preserve and enhance only 110 acres of high quality wetlands, instead of preserving 115 acres of such wetlands, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The 1994 Army Corps permit drops the requirement of creating eight acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral zone, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit, but requires the preservation of what appears to be the 39.5-acre preserve that is proposed by Applicant in the subject permit modification, as described below. Special Condition 3 of the 1994 Army Corps permit adds that all preserved areas "will be maintained in perpetuity free of Melaleuca. The permittee agrees to develop a bonded Melaleuca eradication program for the entire 906 acres. Copies of the bonded agreement will be provided to this office for approval before development can commence." The next permit activity affecting the 900-acre parcel is the subject application filed by Applicant on August 3, 1994, for its 503-acre parcel. On May 24, 1996, the District issued a staff report for conceptual approval of a SWM system proposed by Applicant for its 503-acre parcel. On June 13, 1996, the District issued an addendum to the staff report that contains another special condition that is not especially relevant to this case. In the background section, the staff report mentions the flooding of Phase I of the north parcel and states that the District had “assumed the adjacent wetlands would flow away from the development.” The staff report outlines the modifications implemented to eliminate the flooding; these modifications include connecting the M-1 canal, through inlets, with several wetlands located in the north and central basins. According to the staff report, Petitioner’s north parcel, which totals 287.34 acres, includes the Phase I/Plat 1 area, north basin, and part of central basin south of Phase I. Describing Applicant’s proposal, the staff report states that a preserve of 39.5 acres will be located in the northwest corner of the south parcel, adjoining the east boundary of the 115-acre parcel. The staff report states that the 39.5-acre preserve will sheetflow through cuts in the berm to wetlands in the 115-acre preserve. The 115-acre preserve is connected to the SWM system permitted on November 10, 1993, to eliminate flooding from these wetlands, whose control elevation is 19 feet NGVD. The staff report describes the south parcel as “dominated by flatwood habitat,” within which are stands of Australian pine and other exotic plant species that have recently been spreading across the site. The onsite wetlands are 4.93 acres of wet prairies, 18.4 acres of pond cypress strands, 1.56 acres of isolated marsh, 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwood, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca. The staff report finds that only the 4.93 acres of wet prairies and 18.4 acres of cypress are in good condition, but melaleuca has become established in many of the wet prairies. The 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes and 163.91 acres of melaleuca are in poor condition. The 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwoods are in fair condition. As for listed species, the staff report mentions only the possibility that herons might forage onsite during periods of standing water. Summarizing the impact of the proposed project on wetlands preservation, the staff report endorses the hydrologic reconnection of the 39.5-acre wetland/upland site with the 115-acre wetland. The staff report notes that water levels in the 115-acre preserve, which has been bermed to 21 feet NGVD, have stabilized at 19 feet NGVD. The staff report asserts that the “proposed wetland impacts (183.54 acres) were previously permitted under the conceptual permit application” for the original 1988 Permit. The staff report adds that this modification is to “change a portion of the original mitigation requirements . . . and includes impacts to a 6.78 acre wetland area that was previously permitted to be preserved.” But the staff report does not recommend the preservation of this wetland “[d]ue to the reduced hydrology and proximity to the proposed upland development” and the mitigation and compensation provided by the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report states that 8.76 acres of the 39.5- acre preserve are wetlands, and the remainder are uplands. As for the 8.76 acres of wetlands, the staff report lists 0.67 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods, 4.93 acres of wet prairies, and 3.16 acres of cypress. Applicant would also restore 4.95 acres of pine flatwoods. As for the 183.54 acres of wetlands to be destroyed, the staff report lists 2.83 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods in fair condition, 15.24 acres of cypress in fair condition, 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes in poor condition, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca in poor condition. Addressing the mitigation and monitoring elements of the current proposal, the staff report states that the modification would eliminate the creation of 15 acres of littoral wetlands around SWM lakes and 7.99 acres of marshes in golf courses in return for the creation of the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report assures that Applicant will perpetually manage and maintain the 115-acre preserve. Conceding that the 1988 Permit also required long-term maintenance of the 115-acre parcel, the staff report notes that the initial eradication effort was never completed. The staff report mentions an “access agreement” giving Applicant the authority to enter the 115-acre preserve for mitigation and monitoring, but “anticipat[es]” that Applicant will submit an application for another permit modification, on behalf of the two governmental entities, so that Applicant can “assume future maintenance responsibilities for this area.” As is clarified by the maintenance and monitoring plan, which is part of the proposed permit, Applicant's expectation is that the County and Village, not Applicant, will assume future maintenance responsibilities for the 115-acre preserve. The staff report concludes that the District should issue the permit subject to various conditions. Special Condition 1 is that the minimum building floor elevation is 20 feet NGVD. Special Condition 16 requires the implementation of a wetland mitigation program and requires Applicant to create 4.95 acres of marsh; restore 3.16 acres of cypress, 4.93 acres of marsh, and 0.67 acres of mixed forest; and protect 25.79 acres of uplands. Special Condition 17 sets performance criteria for the mitigation areas in terms of percentage and length of survival of vegetation. Special Condition 17 supplies completion dates for monitoring reports. Special Condition 21 addresses listed species. Noting that listed species have been seen onsite or the site contains suitable habitat for such species, Special Condition 21 requires Applicant to coordinate with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission or the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for guidance, recommendations, or permits to avoid impacts to such species. The monitoring and maintenance plan does not address direct and contingent liabilities for maintenance and generally is a poor candidate for enforcement. In addition to the vagueness of the passive voice, the plan is, at times, simply unreadable, as, for example, when it concludes boldly, but enigmatically: The site as a whole is evolving hydrologic trends which permits successional seres development toward communities with shorter hydroperiods and ultimately, toward more upland transitional and/or exotic species dominance of historically wetland habitats. Long-term prospectives infer that successional deflection has become a severe detriment for natural environmental control to alter the present scenario. Active management coupled with graduated balanced in hydrologic restoration and created habitat elements will become the processes engineered to obtain an infusion of probabilities fashioned to inscribe a regenerative adaptation to the present site condition while fostering in situ processes, to optimize derived functions, for the maintenance of both habitat and wildlife over the long-term existence of the Preserve. (Sic.) Water Quality Impacts Petitioner does not contend in its proposed recommended order that the proposed project fails to meet applicable requirements regarding water quality. Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed permit modification would not violate State water quality standards. Flooding Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding water quantity and flooding. However, Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the project would not violate these requirements. There are several aspects to a SWM system. Undeveloped land stores and conveys rainfall through soil and surface storage. An artificial SWM system alters the undeveloped land’s storage capacity by the addition of a storage and drainage system, such as, in this case, conveying water through the soil into storm drains and then to lakes to store surface runoff prior to release, through an outfall structure, into a receiving body of water--in this case, the M-1 canal. The SWM system hastens the conveyance of stormwater runoff offsite. The control elevation of a SWM system is the height at which water in the lakes will flow through the outfall structure into the receiving body of water. Except during the dry season, the control elevation tends to establish not only the water level of the SWM lakes, but also of the nearby water table. The hastening of drainage offsite with the establishment of control elevations produce the drawdown effect of SWM systems. As to flooding, the basic underlying dispute between Petitioner and Respondents is whether to use the pre- or post- development depth to water table. In determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on wetlands, one would project the effect of any post-development drawdown on the wetlands themselves and their functions and inhabitants. It would be illogical not to do the same in determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on flooding. Pre-development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property is as little as two feet. Post- development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property will be five feet, which is the difference between the control elevation of 14 feet NGVD and ground elevation of 19 feet NGVD. Petitioner’s evidence concerning flooding is flawed because its expert witness based his calculations on an average depth to water table of two feet on Applicant’s property. He did not adjust for the considerable drawdown effect of the SWM system. The District table allows for no more than four feet between the water table and ground, so there is an added margin of safety in the ensuing flooding calculations. Another important factor in the flooding calculations is the soil type in terms of permeability. The District properly characterized the prevailing soils as flatwoods, and the soils onsite are in the category of “good drainage.” Applicant’s suggestion that flooding calculations use the post-development soils is rejected. Post-development depths to water table are used because they can be calculated to predict post-development conditions accurately. Applicant produced no proof that it would replace such massive amounts of soil from the site with more permeable soils so as to justify reclassifying the soil type. The District's flooding calculations probably overstate the risk of flooding in the three-day, 100-year design storm because they ignore lake bank storage, which is the additional amount of water that a lake can store in its sloped banks above the typical water elevation. The District could have relied on the effect of lake bank storage for additional assurance that the proposed project will not result in flooding. The proposed project contains a large number of long, narrow lakes, which will thus have a relatively high percentage of lake banks to lake area. Additionally, the District has raised the minimum floor elevation at this site by two feet over 18 years. Whatever other effects may follow from this trend, the higher floor elevation offers additional protection to onsite improvements. The flooding of Petitioner’s property seven years ago understandably is a matter of concern to Petitioner. Applicant proposes to change the configuration of drainage basins, but the District has adequately addressed the drainage issue, and this is not the first time in the 20-year permitting history of this property that the District has approved a reconfiguration of basins. Also, in the 1988 Permit, the District incorrectly projected the direction of runoff under certain conditions. However, the flooding was partly due to inadequate road- drainage facilities. Following the flooding, the Original Developer enlarged these features and bermed the flooding wetlands, so as to eliminate the flooding of developed areas due to design storm events. On balance, Applicant has proved that the proposed permit modification would not adversely affect flooding or water quantity. Environmental Impacts A. Wetlands Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding environmental impacts to wetlands. Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed work would not violate these requirements. There are two major deficiencies in the District's analysis of wetland impacts and mitigation or compensation. First, the proposed permit modification includes mitigation or compensation in the form of melaleuca removal. But prior permits have already required the same work, no one has ever done the work, and the District does not know if these permit requirements are still enforceable. Second, the proposed permit modification ignores 13.9 acres of preserved wetlands in the 1988 Permit, allowing their destruction without mitigation or compensation. The permitting process requires the District to balance the impacts of development and mitigation or compensation on the natural resources under the District's jurisdiction. Balancing these impacts in issuing the 1988 Permit, the District required the complete eradication of melaleuca in return for permitting the residential, institutional, and recreational development proposed by the Original Developer. District staff, not the Original Developer or Petitioner, called the Melaleuca Eradication Plan “the major environmental feature” of the development plan approved by the 1988 Permit. The major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit clearly justified significant development impacts on natural resources. To justify additional development impacts on natural resources, the District now proposes to count again another developer’s promise to eradicate the melaleuca. The District claims that the term of the original melaleuca protection plan was only ten years, not perpetual as is presently proposed. However, the District's claim ignores Special Condition 23 in the 1993 permit modification. This condition set a deadline of February 25, 1994, for the eradication of melaleuca and made perpetual the requirement that one or more of the potentially responsible parties--the Original Developer, Petitioner, Applicant, the bonded authority, the property owners' association, or transferees-- maintain the wetlands free of melaleuca and other exotics. Unfortunately, this “major environmental feature” of the 1988 Permit, as well as subsequent permit modifications, was so poorly drafted as to leave potentially responsible parties unsure of their legal obligations. The District tacitly suggests that it cannot enforce the obligations imposed by the 1988 Permits and later modifications for the eradication of melaleuca. But there is presently no reason for the District to resort again to permitting without first reviewing carefully its enforcement options. The District should first determine whether anyone will voluntarily assume these obligations. As a business consideration, Petitioner may choose to eradicate the melaleuca from the north parcel and 115-acre preserve to prevent Applicant from providing this service and claiming that it should receive compensation credit against additional environmental impacts permitted by a modification of the 1988 Permit. Maybe the County or Village has already budgeted funds for this work. If no party offers to perform the necessary work, the District must next determine its legal rights and the legal obligations of these parties. Depending on the results of this research, the District may need to consider litigation and the cessation of the issuance of construction and operation permits on the 900-acre parcel or either the north or south parcel. At this point, the District should discuss joint litigation or permit revocation with the Army Corps, whose 1994 permit requires the permittee to develop a bonded melaleuca-eradication program and apparently imposes on the permittee the responsibility to maintain all preserved areas free of melaleuca. Only after having exhausted these options may the District legitimately conclude that melaleuca eradication on any part of the 900 acres represents fair compensation for the development impacts on jurisdictional natural resources. The second major problem as to wetlands impacts concerns the calculation of wetlands acreages to be destroyed by the proposed permit. The 1988 Permit expressly incorporates the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. This program, as an operative part of the 1988 Permit, represents that the developer will “partially preserve. . .” nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres. The partial preservation of wetlands does not mean that a five-acre wetland will remain a five-acre wetland, except that its function will be impaired. Partial preservation means that, for instance, two acres of a five- acre wetland will be preserved. It is impossible for the District to have required mitigation to offset the destruction of these 13.9 acres of wetlands because the District denies that the 1988 Permit required the partial preservation of these nine wetlands. As noted below, neither the District nor Applicant can identify all of the wetlands that make up the 13.9 acres. Rather than account for these wetlands that were to have been partially preserved, the District instead contends that this undertaking by the Original Developer was ineffective or nonbinding because it was overriden by contrary statements in the staff report. Not so. The specific provisions delineating the preserved wetlands area in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was prepared by the Original Developer, override more general statements contained in the staff report accompanying the permit. There is not necessarily a conflict between the staff report and the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The staff report states that the plan “includes the protection of approximately 100 acres of the best quality wetlands,” together with the creation of eight acres of golf course wetlands and 15 acres of lake littoral zones. The plan “includes” these wetlands among those preserved or created; the word suggests that the list is not exhaustive, but only illustrative. Alternatively, if the list were exhaustive, the preservation of “approximately” 100 acres reasonably encompasses the 112.71 acres of partially or totally preserved wetlands cited in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. More to the point, on October 26, 1987, Donald Wisdom, the engineer handling the 1988 Permit, prepared a memorandum for the file stating that the total acreage of wetlands to be preserved or created was 134.45. This figure represents an insignificant deviation of 0.19 acres from the total listed in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was dated six weeks later, on December 8, 1987. In the October 26 memorandum, Mr. Wisdom describes the preserved wetlands as 111.46 acres of A- and B-quality wetlands. This is 1.25 acres less than the acreage in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. These small discrepancies were eliminated by November 18, 1987, when Mr. Wisdom wrote a memorandum noting that the program called for the total preservation of 98.81 acres and partial preservation of 13.9 acres. Adding the created wetlands, the new total for preserved or created wetlands was 134.64 acres. A month later, a District employee wrote a memorandum to the file, expressing his “main concern” that the proposed development would protect only 99 acres of wetlands. It is unclear why the employee mentioned only the 98.81 acres slated for preservation. Perhaps he was confused or mistaken. But the misgivings of a single employee do not constitute the rejection by the District of a developer's proposal to preserve nearly 14 acres of high-quality wetlands. The staff report for the 1988 Permit notes that the 900-acre site contained about 281 acres of wetlands. If the 1988 Permit required the preservation, as an entire wetland or part of a larger wetland, of 112 acres of wetlands, then the 1988 Permit allowed the destruction of 169 acres, which is consistent with the 164 and 158 acres allowed to be destroyed by the 1988 and 1994 Army Corps permits. However, by the 1996 permit modification, the staff report refers, without explanation or justification, to the permitted destruction of 183.54 acres of wetlands--evidently adding the 13.9 acres to the 169 acres previously permitted to be destroyed. Tab 13 of the Wisdom bluebook identifies the nine wetlands constituting the 13.9 acres, which are entirely in Applicant's south parcel. Except for three, all of these wetlands were characterized as A-quality, meaning that they are in good to excellent condition and “have not been stressed significantly from the biological viewpoint.” B-quality wetlands are in disturbed condition and “are in various stages of biological stress caused primarily by a lowered water table and/or melaleuca invasion.” C-quality wetlands are highly disturbed and “are substantially degraded biologically.” The 13.9 acres of wetlands comprise wetland numbers 23 (0.5 acres), 46 (0.4 acres), 44 (0.6 acres), 37 (0.4 acres), 29 (1.1 acres), 20 [sometimes misreported as 21] (3.9 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 16 (1.5 acres), and 14 (2.9 acres). Wetland numbers 46 and 29 are B-quality, and wetland number 20 is C-quality. The wetlands shown in District Exhibit 4 and Applicant Exhibit 3 inaccurately portray the wetlands constituting the missing 13.9 acres. A internal memorandum to the file notwithstanding, the District predicated the 1988 Permit in part on the preservation of 112.71 acres of functioning wetlands, including the 13.9 acres that the District now disclaims. The mitigation and compensation required of Applicant in the present case ignored the destruction of these wetlands. The District's analysis of mitigation and compensation in this case was fatally flawed by these two deficiencies. But more deficiencies exist in the District's analysis of wetland impacts. The District relied on faulty data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. Undercounting the extent of wetlands by at least 21 acres and their condition by an indeterminable amount, Applicant presented to the District a materially inaccurate picture of the wetland resources on the south parcel. Despite disclaimers to the contrary, the District relied on this inaccurate data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. There are possible problems with 39.5-acre preserve offered by Applicant. This parcel contains less than nine acres of wetlands, including two wetlands that Applicant may already be required to preserve under the 1994 Army Corps permit. At the same time, Applicant's proposal may include the destruction of a third wetland that is to be preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. The best rendering in the record of the 1994 Army Corps permit may be Applicant Exhibit 4, which shows eight large wetland areas to be “preserved/enhanced/created.” Two of these are the 10- and 30-acre wetlands on Petitioner’s property, which were preserved in the 1988 Permit. Three of the eight wetlands are in the 115-acre preserve; these were also preserved in the 1988 Permit. The remaining three wetlands to be preserved, enhanced, or created under the 1994 Army Corps permit are in the north end of Applicant’s property. It is difficult to estimate acreage given the scale of the drawing, but the two westerly wetlands are about 4-5 acres each and the easterly wetland is 3-3.5 acres. Subtracting the total preserved acreage of 110 from the acreage identified in the preceding paragraph, the total acreage of these remaining three wetlands is about 12. The two westerly wetlands are in the 39.5-acre preserve that Applicant offers as mitigation in the present case. According to Applicant Exhibit 6, the easterly wetland, or at least the most valuable part of it--the center--is slated for destruction if the District grants the subject permit modification. The proposed destruction of the third wetland is a matter of greater interest to the Army Corps than to the District, but the offer to preserve the other two wetlands really does not provide anything in return for the permitted development impacts because these two wetlands are already preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. As the District and Applicant contend, golf course marshes and littoral zones are typically of little environmental importance. Although the 1988 Permit addresses some of these problems, although without supplying any performance standards, golf courses themselves are often conduits of fertilizers and pesticides into the groundwater and nearby surface water. The District and Applicant justifiably question the value of the golf courses approved in the 1988 Permit as wildlife corridors. It is unclear what wildlife would use the corridor, which is surrounded by residential development and bounded by Okeechobee Boulevard. Other factors also militate in favor of Applicant's proposal. But, as the record presently stands, there is no way to find that Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed development and related mitigation and compensation, as described in the subject permit modification, meet the applicable criteria. The District substantially undervalued the environmental impacts of the proposed modification while substantially overvaluing the environmental impacts of Applicant's proposed contributions in the form of mitigation and compensation. To find adequate assurance as to wetland impacts in these circumstances, where the District did not perform an informed balancing of various impacts in a large-scale development, would permit the District to transform the unavoidably imprecise task of balancing wetland impacts into an act of pure, unreviewable discretion. Listed Species The only relevant listed species onsite is the gopher tortoise, which is a species of special concern. Gopher tortoises use the site to an undetermined extent. Applicant's suggestion that someone brought the tortoises to the site is rejected as improbable. However, due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant provided reasonable assurance as to the value of functions provided to wildlife and listed species by wetlands. Procedural Issues A. Standing Petitioner has standing due most obviously to flooding considerations. Additionally, the SWM system permitted in 1988 is for the entire 900-acre parcel, of which Petitioner’s parcel is a part. Applicability of ERP Rules The proposed permit modification would substantially affect water resources. The proposed permit modification would substantially increase the adverse effect on water resources. Requirement to Delineate Wetlands Due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant met applicable requirements concerning the delineation of wetlands. Improper Purpose Petitioner did not challenge the proposed permit modification for an improper purpose. Relevant Provisions of Basis of Review The District revised its Basis of Review after the adoption of ERP rules. Although the order concludes that the District should have applied the ERP rules, and thus the ERP Basis of Review, the order shall discuss both versions of the Basis of Review because the District ignored numerous provisions of both documents in approving Applicant's request for a permit modification. Section 4.6 MSSW Basis of Review requires the District to consider "actual impact" to the site by "considering the existing natural system as altered by the proposed project[,]" including "positive and negative environmental impacts." Section 4.6 requires the District to "balance" these impacts "to achieve a reasonable degree of protection for significant environmental features consistent with the overall protection of the water resources of the District." The proposed permit modification fails to comply with several provisions of Appendix 7 of the MSSW Basis of Review, such as Sections 4.2 requiring a detailed description of the isolated wetlands to be destroyed; 5.1.1(d) favoring the protection of isolated wetlands over their destruction, mitigation, and compensation, which are considered "only when there are no feasible project design alternatives"; and 5.1.6 prohibiting the alteration of water tables so as to affect adversely isolated wetlands. The proposed permit modification also violates various provisions of the ERP Basis of Review. Section 4.0 of the ERP Basis of Review sets the goal of permitting to be "no net loss in wetland . . . functions." Sections 4.2 and following generally require balancing. Section 4.2.1 predicates District approval on a showing that the SWM system does not cause a "net adverse impact on wetland functions . . . which is not offset by mitigation." The ERP provisions first require that the District "explore" with an applicant the minimization of impacts prior to considering mitigation. Section 4.2.2.4(c) specifically imposes monitoring requirements for SWM systems that "could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands." Sections 4.3.2.2 and following discuss mitigation ratios under the ERP Basis of Review. If the District can explicate a policy to count as mitigation wetlands acreage already preserved under Army Corps permits, the ratios in this case might warrant further consideration, assuming Applicant resubmits an application for permit modification. But it would be premature to consider the ratios on the present record for several reasons. The District has not proved such a policy. If such a policy counts such wetland acreage, on the theory that the District protects function and the Army Corps protects merely the wetland, the record is insufficiently developed as to the functions of the wetlands proposed for protection, as well as the functions of the 13.9 acres of wetlands proposed for destruction. Also, the District has not sufficiently explored project minimization, as is now required under the ERP Basis of Review.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order denying Applicant's request for a permit modification. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 13, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 13, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey D. Kneen John F. Mariani J. Barry Curtain Levy Kneen 1400 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ronald K. Kolins Thomas A. Sheehan, III Moyle Flanigan Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John J. Fumero Marcy I. LaHart Office of Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Samuel E. Poole, III Executive Director Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
Findings Of Fact Urbanek owns land in and adjacent to Town Lots 93 and 94, Highland Beach, in Section 28, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida. The real estate in question is located on the eastern shore of the Intra-Coastal Waterway approximately 2,000 feet south of the mouth of the C-15 Canal. Urbanek seeks a permit under Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes, and water quality certification under Public Law 92-500, to dredge approximately 24,500 square feet of shoreline and shallow nearshore area, while installing approximately 240 linear feet of bulkhead and ten mooring piles, and constructing a marginal dock and piers for the use of future residents. The application also includes filling approximately 60,000 square feet of tidally connected ditches and wetlands to allow the construction of a high density residential development. On January 19, 1976, DER received a short form application for a permit from Urbanek pursuant to Subsection 17-4.28 (4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. On March 10, 1976, Urbanek received from DER a request for additional information. This occurred 51 days after Urbanek's original application for permit. Urbanek forwarded the requested additional information to DER on April 22, 1976, and April 30, 1976. On May 12, 1976, DER notified Urbanek that the project must be submitted using standard permitting procedures along with the incorporation of certain recommendations made by DER's field inspector. On June 9, 1976, Urbanek was notified by DER that his application had been forwarded to Tallahassee with a recommendation for denial on two grounds. First, that the application did not meet the criteria for short form applications and second, that the proposed project would eliminate valuable submerged and wetland habitats. On July 27, 1976, Urbanek was notified by DER's Tallahassee office that his application was received on January 1976, and that the application was incomplete. The notification requested additional information. On September 22, 1976, DER notified Urbanek that processing of his application was discontinued because required data was not sent by Urbanek to DER. Urbanek was further advised that processing of the application," would be continued upon receipt of the necessary information. On January 20, 1977, Urbanek submitted another modified permit application to DER. On February 28, 1977, DER sent Urbanek notice of receipt of the application once again requesting additional information be submitted. On March 4, 1977, Urbanek forwarded the requested information to DER. On April 1, -1977, DER forwarded to Urbanek its notice of intent to deny and the proposed order of denial of the permit application. On April 15, 1977, Urbanek petitioned DER for a hearing pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The area of the project, prior to the turn of the century, was a fresh water wetland. However, salt water intrusion from the permanent opening of the Boca Inlet in south Palm Beach County in the early 1900's paved the way for colonization of mangroves in the Spanish River Basin, now the Intra-Coastal Waterway. As the human population increased in Palm Beach County, the mangroves were destroyed in order to afford living spaces. As a result, approximately 77 percent of the mangroves in Palm Beach County have been removed. One of the last remaining mangrove areas in southern Palm Beach County is located on a strip of land which borders the eastern side of the Intra-Coastal Waterway. The applicant's project site represents a portion of that strip. The project site fronts 230 feet-of the Intra-Coastal Waterway and extends approximately 670 feet eastward to State Road A1A. The property is intersected by three mosquito control ditches which run perpendicular to the Intra-Coastal Waterway but do not connect with it, and by six lateral ditches which extend from north to south and adjoin the property to the south. The project site is thus divided into eighteen parcels of land or "islands" and a fringing shoreline area. A survey conducted on October 13, 1977, and October 18, 1977, revealed the emergent areas between the ditches to be vegetated by mostly white mangroves, with canopies ranging from fifteen to forty-five feet in height. Numerous white and red mangrove seedlings plus a few scattered black mangrove seedlings indicate that the area may be changing from a predominantly white mangrove to a mixed mangrove community throughout the project site. Batis and Sesuvium were found and Australian Pines and Brazilian Pepper were observed only in areas where spoil from dredging activities was placed on the emergent area. There are approximately seven to eight thousand trees, including seedlings, in the project area. The mangrove system at the project site was characterized as a very productive system by Dr. G. Alex Marsh, an expert in Estuarine Ecology, who testified for DER. Dr. Arnold Banner of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with Dr. Marsh that the eradication of the productive system would result in the removal of a significant source of food and habitat. The evidence shows that a wetland habitat such as the project site affords approximately 535 pounds of fishing products per year with a dollar value of $8,000 per acre to the public. Petitioner argues that it would be in the public interest to bulkhead and fill the subject property because rodents would be eliminated, trash and debris would no longer collect on the property and that further erosion of the property would be prevented. However, Urbanek has failed to establish with substantial competent evidence that there actually exists a rodent problem on the subject property. The evidence does establish that trash and debris collect among the root system of the vegetation and that severe erosion has occurred on the property from wave action created by vessels moving through the Intra- Coastal Waterway. Urbanek has failed to establish with substantial competent evidence that the proposed project will not degrade water quality, cause violation of water quality standards or criteria or cause pollution. In fact, no evidence was submitted whatsoever by Urbanek which would tend to prove any of these three preconditions to the granting of the requested permit. Nonetheless, DER's failure to act on the permit application within the time limits prescribed by Subsection 120.60 (2), Florida Statutes, as amended in 1976, mandates the issuance of the requested permit.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, John Jozsa, should have a $6,000.00 administrative penalty imposed, take corrective action, and pay investigative costs for allegedly dredging 0.91 acres of wetlands and filling 0.52 acres of wetlands without a permit on his property located in unincorporated Sumter County, Florida, as alleged in a Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (Notice) issued by Petitioner, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), on March 13, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The charges Respondent owns an approximate 4.5-acre parcel of land located at 1978 County Road 652A in unincorporated Sumter County, Florida. The parcel identification number is N29A003. The property is generally located east of Interstate 75, west of U.S. Highway 301, and just south of the City of Bushnell. According to aerial photographs, County Road 652A appears to begin at U.S Highway 301 and runs in a westerly direction where it forms the southern boundary of Respondent's parcel and terminates a short distance later. Southwest 80th Street also runs west from U.S. Highway 301 and forms the northern boundary of the property, while Southwest 20th Terrace runs in a north- south direction adjacent to its western boundary. Respondent purchased the parcel on September 27, 1993, and constructed a home on the site several years later. The property is contiguous to Mud Lake, a Class III waterbody lying to the southeast of Respondent's property. According to Respondent's Exhibit 2.b., at least a portion of the property is in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) 100-year flood zone. While conducting a site inspection near Respondent's property on September 27, 2006, Brian Brown, an Environmental Specialist III in the Department's Tampa District Office, heard "heavy equipment" operating nearby and drove to Respondent's home. There he observed a "tracked vehicle" resembling a bulldozer "knocking down trees" and grading an area that appeared to be wetlands. Mr. Brown took photographs of the cleared land and the tracked vehicle to confirm his observations. See Department's Exhibits 2a. through d. At hearing, Respondent acknowledged that he had borrowed the equipment from a friend, Leo, to "level and smooth" the "uplands" and "other areas." After returning to his office, Mr. Brown first confirmed through information from the Sumter County Appraiser's Office that Respondent owned the property in question. He then reviewed aerial photographs of Respondent's property taken in 1993, 1997, 2002, and 2006 to determine the condition of the property in earlier years. These photographs reflected that before 2006, the parcel had no large cleared area like the one that he had observed on the northern half of the property. Mr. Brown also studied a soil survey of the area to determine the type of soils on Respondent's property, and he reviewed the Florida Wetlands Delineation Manual which is used to determine if property is wetlands or uplands. Finally, information in the Department's database revealed that Respondent had not applied for a permit to conduct the observed activities. Based on this preliminary information, Mr. Brown generated a request for a formal inspection of Respondent's property by filling out a complaint form. (Respondent continues to believe that Mr. Brown was not conducting a "routine" inspection in the area but rather was in the area because a neighbor had filed a complaint; however, the complaint was triggered by Mr. Brown, who filed a complaint form himself based on the observations he made on September 27, 2006.) Mr. Brown then contacted Respondent by letter to set up a date on which the property could be formally inspected to verify "that Wetlands and or Surface Waters of the State are not being impacted." In response to Mr. Brown's letter, Respondent advised the Department that it could inspect his property. Around 1:30 p.m. on November 14, 2006, Mr. Brown and Lee W. Hughes, another Department employee, inspected Respondent's property to determine whether Respondent's activities were conducted within wetlands and to what extent wetlands were impacted. Respondent was present during the inspection. The employees' observations are memorialized in photographs received in evidence as Department's Exhibits 11A through 11N. The two observed a "large" area north of Respondent's home that had been totally cleared and deforested. The center of the cleared property had been dredged or scraped to create a pond-like area several feet lower than the adjoining land, while the soils removed from the pond-like area had been used to create sculptured white side-casting perhaps ten inches high on the edges of the pond, filling additional wetlands. However, the pond was empty because of drought conditions. The Department's inspection revealed that the cleared area was wetlands because of the presence of various plant species which are indicative of wetlands, including Swamp Tupelo, Red Maple, American Elm, Swamp Dogwood, Dahoon Holly, Buttonbush, Swamp Laurel Oak, Carolina Willow, Elderberry, Soft Rush, Smartweed, and Dayflower. Also, there were hydrologic indicators such as water stain lines, elevated lichen lines, and hypertrophied lenticels. Finally, there were hydric soils found on the property. This was confirmed by ground-truthing (an on- site evaluation of the wetlands and their parameters to verify the on-site conditions), which revealed dark top soil at least four inches thick and the presence of muck. Collectively, these indicators are sufficient to make a finding that the impacted area was wetlands. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-340.200 and Department's Exhibit 9. The fact that the "home-site ha[d] [not] been delineated [as wetlands] by any other governmental agency," as asserted by Respondent in his Proposed Recommended Order, is not dispositive of the issue. Respondent's assertion that no dredged materials were taken off-site, and no fill was brought onto the property, was not challenged. A second inspection was conducted by Mr. Brown and Lindsay L. Brock, then a Department employee, on December 19, 2006, for the purpose of mapping the actual size of the impacted area with Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) equipment.6 The second inspection was necessary since the Department's GPS equipment was inoperative during the first inspection. Based on Ms. Brock's GPS calculations, which have been received in evidence as Department's Exhibit 19, the Department determined that the total area dredged was 0.91 acres, while the filled area was 0.52 acres. The total impacted area was 1.4 acres of wetlands. This amount was calculated by measuring the size of the pond, 0.91 acres, with the side-casting accounting for the remaining 0.52 acres. During the inspection, the area was also photographed a second time, and these photographs have been received in evidence as Department's Exhibits 12A through 12K. An Enforcement Inspection Report (Report) was later prepared by Mr. Brown summarizing the findings of the two inspections. That Report has been received in evidence as Department's Exhibit 10 and Respondent's Exhibit 1.e. At hearing, Mr. Brown reaffirmed that the findings in the Report were correct. Specifically, the wetlands in the disturbed area were characterized as having a dominance of Obligate and Facultative Wet species and numerous hydrologic indicators, as well as soils typically found in wetlands. A jurisdictional determination established that the impacted property was wetlands; that there were adverse impacts caused by the violations, i.e., impacts described in Sections 3.2.3.2, 3.2.3.3, 3.2.3.4(a), and 3.2.3.7 of the Basis of Review of the Southwest Florida Water Management District; and that there were cumulative and secondary impacts associated with the violations, i.e., the actual loss of 1.4 acres of forested hardwood wetlands (Gum Swamp-613), habitat loss, the alteration in the normal flow of detrital material to Mud Lake, and the reduction in the system's ability to cycle and control nutrient and pollutant levels. Because the impacted lands were wetlands, a permit is required in order to perform any dredging and filling. See Fla. Admin. Code 62-343.050. The Report recommended that a Notice be issued. On February 13, 2007, the Department's Tampa District Office sent Respondent a Warning Letter advising him "of possible violations of law for which [he] may be responsible, and to seek [his] cooperation in resolving the matter." Department's Exhibit 22 and Respondent's Exhibit 1.h. The letter also requested that Respondent meet with Mr. Brown to discuss the alleged violations. A meeting was held at the District Office on March 12, 2007, but efforts to resolve the matter were unsuccessful. During the informal discussions between the parties, and prior to the issuance of a Notice, Respondent requested an exemption under Section 373.406(1) and (6), Florida Statutes.7 The first subsection provides that no Department rule, regulation, or order affects the right of any person to capture, discharge, and use water "for purposes permitted by law." The second subsection provides that the Department may exempt "those activities that the . . . department determines will have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the district." At hearing, Mr. Brown indicated that he did not respond to the exemption request because Respondent did not qualify. This is because dredging and filling of wetlands is not "permitted by law" without first obtaining a permit, and because, for the reasons cited in its Report, the Department construed the activities as having more than "minimal or insignificant" impacts. Given these circumstances, the statutory exemptions do not apply. The Notice was not issued until a year later on March 13, 2008. The reason for the delay is not of record. Besides contending that Mr. Brown's testimony was not credible, through examination of witnesses and the submission of various exhibits, Respondent raised numerous points to support his contentions that (a) the property is not wetlands, (b) no dredging or filling occurred, and (c) the activities are exempt from Department permitting requirements under several statutes.8 He also argued that the Department's decision to initiate an enforcement action against him was flawed or biased. The latter argument has been considered and rejected. Respondent first asserts that the wetlands on his property were already stressed and in bad condition, and that clearing the area and replanting vegetation in and around the pond area created a healthier environment for the vegetation and plants. While Mr. Brown conceded that the wetlands may have been stressed, that in itself does not cause the impacted property to lose its wetlands character, and a permit to dredge and fill the site is still required. Respondent also pointed out that the impacted area was dry before and after the activities occurred, and therefore the wetlands determination was incorrect. He further points out that the Department's representatives agreed that no water or moisture on the ground surface were observed during their two inspections. Given the number of wetland indicators found on the site even during drought conditions, the argument that the property is not wetlands has been rejected. See Finding of Fact 6, supra. Respondent also argued that an authoritative source (Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook) indicates that the soils in that area of the County are not the type typically found on wetlands. Specifically, the predominant soil on his property is identified as "Kanapaha sand, bouldery subsurface (25)," which is not considered a hydric soil. Mr. Brown explained, however, that notwithstanding what another source may state, it is necessary to verify the type of soil by performing field tests at the site. Ground-truthing performed during the first inspection confirmed the presence of soils typically found in wetlands. See Finding of Fact 7, supra. Respondent also questioned the accuracy of the Department's Exhibit 18, which is an aerial of Respondent's property created by Mr. Brown in February 2008 depicting a pond filled with water in the middle of the cleared area. Respondent contended that the map could not be accurate since the pond area was dry in February 2008 due to drought conditions. In response to this criticism, Mr. Brown noted that the map was not supposed to represent an actual aerial photograph taken in 2008. Rather, it was created for the purpose of superimposing on the property the pond-like area (with water added) observed during the 2006 inspections and was intended only to demonstrate the pond's size in relation to the size of the entire parcel. The exhibit was not tendered for the purpose of proving that the dredging and filling had occurred. Through examination of Mr. Brown, Respondent attempted to show that he qualified for a stormwater exemption under Section 403.813(2)(q), Florida Statutes, on the theory that his activities fell within the purview of that law. The statute exempts from permitting requirements the construction, operation, and maintenance of a stormwater management facility which is designed to "serve single-family residential projects, including duplexes, triplexes, and quadruplexes, if they are less than 10 acres total land and have less than 2 acres of impervious surface and if the facilities" satisfy three conditions. One condition is that the facility must "discharge into a stormwater discharge facility exempted or permitted by the department under this chapter which has sufficient capacity and treatment capability as specified in this chapter and is owned, maintained, or operated by a city, county, special district with drainage responsibility, or water management district . . . ." Id. Therefore, even if the pond-like area could be characterized as a stormwater facility, Respondent still does not meet the requirements of the statute since his "facility" does not discharge into another exempt or permitted facility as defined in the statute. In this case, the waters eventually discharge into Mud Lake, which was not shown to be an exempt or permitted stormwater facility. Respondent also questioned the manner in which the Department calculated the size of the impacted area for purposes of assessing an administrative penalty. See Department's Exhibit 21 and Respondent's Exhibit 1.j., in which penalties are assessed based on the dredged and filled areas each being "greater than one-half acre but less than or equal to one acre." Specifically, he argues that the combined dredged and filled areas exceed one acre in size, and under the terms of Section 403.121(3)(c), Florida Statutes, the administrative penalty schedule in the cited statute does not apply. To support this contention, Respondent noted that in responding to discovery, the Department acknowledged that the total impacted area was 1.4 acres. Section 403.121(3)(c), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part that "the administrative penalty schedule shall not apply to a dredge and fill violation if the area dredged or filled exceeds one acre." In assessing penalties under the statute, the Department considers the dredging and filling as two separate violations. See Counts I and II, Notice. Therefore, it did not combine the two impacted areas for purposes of calculating a penalty under the administrative penalty schedule. While the statute is inartfully drawn and is arguably susceptible to more than one interpretation, the Department's interpretation is a reasonable and permissible one, and its computation is hereby accepted. (If Respondent's construction of the statute was approved, and the two impacted areas were combined, this would not mean that the Department could not assess a penalty. Rather, it appears the Department would then have the choice of (a) filing an action in circuit court seeking the imposition of civil (rather than administrative) penalties, or (b) assessing an administrative penalty under Section 403.121(9), Florida Statutes, which did not exceed $5,000.00 per violation or $10,000.00 for all violations.) Respondent also contended that he was simply performing landscaping and gardening activities with a tracked vehicle, and that no "excavation" within the meaning of Section 373.403(13), Florida Statutes, occurred. That statute defines dredging as "excavation, by any means, in surface waters or wetlands."9 On the other hand, "filling" is defined in Section 373.403(14), Florida Statutes, as "the deposition, by any means, of materials in surface waters or wetlands." On this issue, the evidence shows that Respondent used a tracked vehicle to remove, scrape, and/or push soils from the wetlands to create the pond-like area and then deposited those materials in other wetlands around the sides of the pond to create the side casting. This activity constituted dredging and filling, as defined above. The remaining arguments of Respondent have been carefully considered and rejected. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Respondent engaged in dredging and filling in wetlands without a permit, as alleged in the Notice, and that the charges have been sustained. Mitigation In its Proposed Final Order, the Department contends that Respondent presented no mitigation and therefore the administrative penalties should not be reduced. Mitigating circumstances include, among other things, "good faith efforts [by the violator] to comply prior to or after discovery of the violations by the department." § 403.121(10), Fla. Stat. After the area was dredged and filled, Respondent replanted some trees and plants while landscaping his back yard. Also, prior to hearing, he engaged the services of two experts to prepare an evaluation of the charges in the Notice, inspect the property, and submit suggested corrective actions for restoring the impacted area to its original condition. Although the two experts did not appear at hearing, they did render reports which contained proposed corrective actions, and their work should arguably be construed as a good faith effort by Respondent to comply with the Department's requirement that the property be restored to its original condition. Corrective Actions The Department has proposed extremely lengthy and detailed corrective actions which are contained in paragraphs 17 through 31 of the Notice and are designed to restore the property to its original condition. (Presumably, these are standard corrective actions imposed in cases such as this for restoring dredged and filled wetlands.) At hearing, Mr. Brown described the nature and purpose of these conditions, which can generally be summarized as (a) requiring that the entire 1.43-acre area be filled and/or regraded to its original contour elevation so that the replanting efforts will be successful, and (b) requiring a rigorous replanting and five-year monitoring schedule. Paragraphs 17 through 31 are set forth below: Respondents [sic] shall forthwith comply with all Department rules regarding dredging and filling within a surface water or wetland. Respondent shall correct and redress all violations in the time periods required below and shall comply with all applicable rules in Fla. Admin. Code Chapter 62-343 and 62-340. Within 30 days of the effective date of this Notice of Violation, the Respondent shall attend a pre-construction conference with a representative of the Department's Environmental Resources staff to review the work authorized by this Notice of Violation. Prior to the commencement of any earthmoving authorized in this Notice of Violation, the Respondent shall properly install and maintain Erosion and Sedimentation Control devices around the impacted area to prevent siltation and turbid discharge in to adjacent wetlands and surface waters (See Figure 2 attached hereto and incorporated herein). The Erosion and Sedimentation Control devices (i.e. staked silt screen) shall be installed no further than one-foot from the toe of the impacted area and shall remain in place until the restoration actions are completed to the Department's satisfaction. The Respondent shall re-grade the approximate 1.43 acres of impacted wetland to a grade consistent with the adjacent, unaltered wetlands, as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 attached hereto and incorporated herein. (a) Only fill material excavated from the impacted area shall be used in the restoration of the site. If it is determined that there is an insufficient amount of the fill to obtain the required grade, the Respondent shall cease all work and notify the Department so an alternative restoration plan can be developed, if necessary. During and after re-grading, Respondent shall stabilize all side slopes as soon as possible to prevent erosion, siltation, or turbid run-off into waters of the State, but, in any event, no later than 72 hours after attaining final grade. Any re-grading or filling of the restoration areas shall be conducted so as not to affect wetlands and surface waters outside the restoration area. Within 30 days of completing the requirements outlined in paragraph 20 above and prior to planting, the Respondent shall submit a certified topographic survey of the 1.43 acres of restored wetlands to the Department for review and approval. The Department shall notify the Respondent if the re-grading is acceptable and whether the re- grading is at the correct elevation to ensure that the restoration area will function as a wetland as defined in Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Codes (sic). If the re- grading is unacceptable to the Department, Respondent shall have 21 days in which to correct the problems identified by the Department and shall submit a new survey upon completion of the required work. The survey shall include the following information for the restoration area: The boundary lines of the Respondent's property. Restoration area on the Respondent's Property (in total square footage or acres of restored wetlands)[.] Topographic survey of the restoration area completed by a certified land surveyor. The survey shall illustrate one-foot interval on 25 foot transects throughout the restoration area. The transects shall commence and terminate 30 feet beyond the limits of the restoration area. Once grading has been approved by the Department, the Respondent shall plant 270 of the following species in any combination throughout the 1.43-acres of restored wetlands: Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa syvatica), Red Maples (Acer rubrum), American Elm (Ulmus Americana L.), Swamp Dogwood (Cornus amomum Mill.), [and] Dahoon Holly (Ilex cassine L.). The tree species shall be planted on 15 foot- centers throughout the restoration area and shall be 3-gallon, well-rooted, nursery grown stock. Within 30 days of completion of the planting outlined in paragraph 24 above, the Respondent shall submit a "Time Zero" Monitoring Report, which includes the following information: Respondent's name, address, and OGC Case number; Date the Corrective Actions were completed; Enough color photographs to accurately depict the completion of the wetland restoration actions outlined in paragraphs 20 through 24 above. The photographs shall be taken from fixed reference points shown on a plan-view drawing; Nursery receipts for all plants used in the Restoration Action; Number, size and spacing of each species planted; and Description of any exotic vegetation removal or control conducted to date including the acreage of exotic vegetation removal and how vegetation removal or control was conducted. Subsequent monitoring reports shall be submitted for a period of 5 years following completion of the Corrective Actions: semi- annually for the first year and annually for year two through five. The purpose of the monitoring shall be to determine the "success of the restoration." The monitoring reports shall include the following information: Respondent's name, address, and OGC Case number; Date the inspection was completed; Color photographs taken from the same fixed reference points previously established during the Time-Zero monitoring report so Department personnel can observe the current site conditions and evaluate the success of the restoration plan; The percentage of each planted tree species within the restoration area that has survived; The average height of the planted tree species; The percent canopy cover by planted tree species within the restoration area; a tree shall be defined as a woody species that has a diameter at breast height (DBH) of at least 1.5 inches and a vertical height of 10 feet as measured from the substrate; The percent cover within the restoration area by planted and naturally recruiting native, "non-nuisance," wetland species, as defined in Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code; The percent cover of Brazilian Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), Water Primrose (Ludwigia peruviana) and other nuisance species including those species listed or not listed in Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code; and A written summary describing the success of the restoration area including steps needed and/or taken to promote future success such as replanting and/or nuisance or exotic species removal. Description should also include water levels observed within the restoration area. "Success of the Restoration" means at the end of the monitoring schedule the following success criteria are met in the restoration area: The total percent cover within the restoration area by native wetland vegetation exceeds 85 percent; Average height of the planted tree species exceeds 10-feet; The total percent canopy cover by planted and naturally recruited native wetland trees exceeds 30 percent; The total contribution to percent cover by nuisance, non-wetland or species not listed in Rule 62-340, Florida Administrative Code is less than 10 percent; and The Department has inspected the restoration area and the Department has informed the Respondent in writing that the restoration area meets the definition of a wetland as defined in Rule 62-340.200, Florida Administrative Code. If it is determined by the Department, based on visual inspection and/or review of the monitoring reports, that the restoration area is not meeting the above specified success criteria, an alternative Restoration Plan shall be submitted to the Southwest District Office and shall meet the following requirements: Shall submit the plan within 30 days of notification by the Department of failure to meet the success criteria. Shall implement the alternative plan no later than 90 days after receiving Department approval. Shall restart monitoring and maintenance program. Should the property be sold during the monitoring period, the Respondent shall remain responsible for the monitoring and notify the new owners of the Respondent's obligation to continue the monitoring and maintenance until the Department has determined that the success criteria has been met. The Respondent shall notify the new owner(s) of this in writing and shall provide the Department with a copy of the notification document within 15 days of the sale of the property. Prior to the submittal of each required monitoring report, the Respondent shall remove all exotic and nuisance vegetation from the restored wetland area. Nuisance and exotic vegetation removal shall include but not be limited to Brazilian Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and Water Primrose (Ludwigia peruviana). All exotic vegetation shall be removed from the restoration area using hand-held equipment in a manner that will minimize impacts to the existing wetland plants and will not cause ruts in the wetland soils, which will impede or divert the flow of surface waters. More than any other aspect of this case, Respondent questions the nature and extent of the corrective actions being proposed by the Department on the ground they are too extensive, complex, and unnecessary and will cost tens of thousands of dollars. When asked to quantify or estimate the cost of the corrective actions, Mr. Brown could not. It is fair to infer, however, that the cost of the restoration work will be expensive and probably far exceed the amount of the proposed penalties. The two experts' reports, which are hearsay and cannot be used as a basis for a finding of fact, essentially corroborate Respondent's argument that the corrective actions may be onerous and too far-reaching. The difficulty, however, in evaluating Respondent's claim is that the record is limited to Mr. Brown's testimony justifying the conditions, the hearsay reports of the two experts, and a few exhibits tendered by Respondent. A precise description of the impacted area before the work was undertaken is not a part of the record at hearing. Therefore, the original condition is not known. Through the submission of exhibits and the questioning of Mr. Brown, Respondent contended that a natural depression existed in the area where the pond now sits, that he was merely leveling off the depression while removing dead trees and plants, and that very little soil was actually removed from the pond area. Given these circumstances, he contends that there are insufficient fill materials on site to bring the pond to grade. In his Exhibit 3, Respondent estimates that just to fill the pond area and bring it to the grade of the surrounding land, he would be required to haul in approximately 4,200 cubic yards of sand or fill material. Also, Respondent's Exhibit 2.c. purports to be a copy of an elevation survey of the property containing elevations at different points on the property. The handwritten numbers on the exhibit, which Respondent represents were taken from a certified survey (which is not otherwise identified), reflect the property (presumably before the work was undertaken) gradually sloping from a higher elevation on the southern boundary (around 67 feet) to the road on the northern boundary (around 66 feet), with a lower elevation of around 64 feet in the middle of the parcel, indicating a slightly lower elevation in the middle of the property. Also, a part of the property lies within the FEMA 100- year flood zone. Thus, it is fair to infer that the pond area replaced an area with a slight depression and on which water would accumulate during heavy storm events. This circumstance would logically reduce the amount of fill necessary to restore the pond area to its original contour elevation. Therefore, in implementing the corrective actions, the Department should give consideration, in the manner it deems appropriate, to the fact that the area contained a natural depression before the illicit activities occurred. The evidence supports a finding that the proposed corrective actions, although extensive and costly, should be approved. To the extent Respondent has replanted the impacted area with trees and plants that fit within the Department's restoration scheme, he should also be credited for this work. Reasonable costs and expenses The Department established at hearing that its Tampa District Office employees incurred expenses of more than $500.00 while investigating this matter. This is based upon the number of hours devoted to the case times the hourly salary rate of the employees. Therefore, the Department is entitled to be reimbursed in the amount of $500.00 for reasonable investigative expenses and costs. Respondent has not disputed the amount of time expended by the employees or their hourly compensation but contends in his Proposed Recommended Order that the matter could have been cleared up by a "simple phone call and a few minutes of effort." Respondent's argument is hereby rejected.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether four agency memoranda describing policy on mitigation for dredge and fill projects are unpromulgated rules and were relied on by the agency in violation of Section 120.535(1), F.S. During the hearing, and afterwards in writing, Petitioner sought leave to amend its pleadings to incorporate other policies allegedly relied on by the agency in the process of the dredge and fill application review. That request was denied in an order entered on August 23, 1993. Those policies are addressed in the recommended order in DOAH #93-3367.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, SIP Properties Limited Partnership (SIP) is the record owner of the parcel at issue, approximately thirty-five (35) acres located in the southwest area of Orlando, Orange County, Florida. SIP proposes to prepare the site for commercial and office use by developing the site into separate parcels or lots with proposed uses such as restaurant or fast food establishments, offices and retail stores. Development of the site requires the construction of compensating storage ponds that will act as retention/detention ponds and filling the site. The proposed improvements will result in the filling of 7.47 acres and dredging of 0.42 acres of wetlands claimed to be jurisdictional by DEP. Based on statements made to SIP by staff regarding department "mitigation policies" applicable to SIP's dredge and fill permit application, SIP believed that department policy memoranda were applied during permit review. SIP attached these various memoranda regarding mitigation to its Petition for Administrative Determination of Violation of Rulemaking Requirement dated May 27, 1993, and identified these memoranda as nonrule policies utilized by the department. The department retains on file and makes available for use by its staff the identified memoranda. However, in this case the department did not rely on or apply the mitigation guidelines contained in the memoranda in SIP's Petition. Instead, it applied Part III of Chapter 17-3120, F.A.C. In Part III of Chapter 17-312, F.A.C., the agency has adopted rules addressing the mitigation issues contained in the memoranda in SIP's Petition. For example, the agency has adopted guidelines in rule 17-312.340(2), F.A.C., for applying ratios when mitigation involves creation of state waters, as in this case. The department presently relies on these rules when reviewing mitigation plans, and does not rely on the policy memos referenced in the petition. Determining the mitigation needed to successfully offset impacts from a project is difficult and depends on many factors, including hydrology, soils, planting methods, and monitoring plans. Determining what is needed to reasonably assure successful mitigation must be done on a case by case basis. Not enough is known about the subject to apply any particular set of directions and expect success. DEP is presently in the process of developing rules to further address most aspects of mitigation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection issue its Final Order granting SIP's dredge and fill permit #48-2086169, with the mitigation proposed by the applicant, and establishing an expiration date and monitoring and evaluation plan for determining success of the mitigation as provided in rules 17-312.320 and 17-312.350, F.A.C. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-3. Adopted in paragraph 2. 4.-6. Adopted in paragraph 7. 7.-8. Rejected as unnecessary. 9. Adopted in paragraph 8. 10.-11. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. 12. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. 13.-16. Rejected as unnecessary Adopted in paragraphs 11 and 12. Rejected as unnecessary. 19.-21. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. 22.-23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. 24.-25. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 16. Substantially rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Adopted in part in paragraph 17, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 18. Rejected as immaterial. The agency witnesses established that the vegetation along the canal evidences the physical connection and there is evidence that water flows from the site into the canal. Rejected as unsubstantiated by reliable competent evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. 36.-40. Rejected as unsupported by reliable competent evidence. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary, and as to characterization of merely "relic" wetlands, unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected (the conclusion of jurisdictional limit) as unsupported by the greater weight of evidence. 45.-53. Rejected as immaterial or unnecessary. 54.-56. Adopted in paragraphs 33 and 34. 57. Adopted, as to the limited function, in paragraphs 22 and 23. 58. Adopted in paragraph 26. 59.-60. Adopted in paragraph 23. 61. Rejected, as to the absolute conclusion of "no function", as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 62. Adopted in paragraph 25. 63.-64. Adopted in paragraph 26. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 30. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in substance in paragraph 31. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 30 and 34. Adopted in paragraph 31. 71.-73. Adopted in paragraph 33. 74.-77. Rejected as unnecessary. 78.-79. Adopted in paragraph 31. 80.-81. Adopted in paragraph 35. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 33. 84.-90. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 15. 2.-3. Adopted in paragraph 16. 4.-5. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as unnecessary and as to "binding" effect, unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 19. 11.-15. Adopted in substance in paragraph 21. 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and inconsistent with proposed findings #18 with regard to the constant level in the canal. 17.-18. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 21 and 23. 19.-21. Adopted in paragraphs 19 and 20. 22.-26. Adopted in summary in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 1 and 2. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in part in paragraph 16. That the forests are "healthy and viable" is rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. Adopted in part in paragraph 25; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 33.-34. Adopted in part in paragraph 27; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 35.-37. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 38.-43. Rejected as unnecessary. 44. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The stormwater management plan and mitigation will restore the stormwater treatment functions. 45.-47. Adopted in substance in paragraph 30. Rejected as substantially contrary to the greater weight of evidence (as to the negative impact). Adopted in part, as to water quality problems generally, but rejected as to the ultimate conclusion, as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 51.-52. Adopted in summary in paragraph 31. 53.-54. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 55. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Ronald M. Schirtzer, Esquire Martha H. Formella, Esquire R. Duke Woodson, Esquire FOLEY & LARDNER 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1800 Orlando, Florida 32801 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire John L. Chaves, Esquire Rosanne G. Capeless, Certified Legal Intern Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD, or District) should issue a Modification to Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 36-00583- S-02, Application No. 050408-15 to Plantation Development, Ltd. (PDL), for construction and operation of a surface water management system serving a 78.11-acre condominium development known as Harbour Pointe at South Seas Resort, with discharge into wetlands adjacent to Pine Island Sound.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and arguments, the following facts are found: The Parties PDL, the applicant, is a limited partnership which is the successor to Mariner Group, Inc. (Mariner). SFWMD has jurisdiction over PDL's application, as amended, and has given notice of its intent to grant PDL's application, as amended, with certain conditions. Petitioners, CCA and SCCF, and Intervenor, CSWF, are Florida not-for-profit corporations that challenged the proposed ERP. Development and Permit History The property subject to PDL's application was part of approximately 310-acres on the northern end of Captiva Island in Lee County, Florida. Redfish Pass is to the immediate north, separating Captiva Island from North Captiva Island. Farther to the north is Cayo Costa Island, a large island to the south of Boca Grande Pass. Most of Cayo Costa is a State Park. To the south of Captiva Island is Sanibel Island, the site of the Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge. To the northeast of Sanibel Island and to the east of the rest of the string of barrier islands just mentioned is Pine Island Sound, which is to the west of Pine Island. Pine Island Sound is a state-designated Aquatic Preserve and Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). Pine Island Sound also is state-designated Class II water, but shell-fishing is prohibited in the immediate vicinity of Captiva Island. To the east of Pineland Island is Little Pine Island, which is surrounded by the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve, which includes the Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge. All of these features are part of the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary (CHNE). San Carlos Bay is farther south. The Lee County mainland is to the east of Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay. The 310-acre site was purchased by Mariner in 1972 for development of a resort that became known as the “South Seas Plantation.” Mariner's property included both Captiva Island proper and a smaller island immediately to the east across Bryant Bayou to the north and Chadwick Bayou farther to the south. Bryant Bayou has a narrower inlet from the north, and Chadwick Bayou has a narrower inlet to the south. Both inlets lead to Pine Island Sound. When Mariner purchased the property, it theoretically was possible to develop a maximum of 3,900 dwelling units on the 310-acre property, pursuant to Lee County zoning. In 1973, Mariner submitted an application to Lee County for the right to develop of 912 dwelling units on its 310 acres. PDL characterizes this as a "voluntary down-zoning" for the purpose of protecting the environment and unusual for a developer to do at that point in time. However, it is speculative how much more than 912 dwelling units would have been approved by Lee County at the time. The purpose of Mariner’s application to Lee County was to create a resort where recreational, single family, multi- family, and some commercial uses would coexist in a resort setting. The overall development plan was to construct the resort while conserving many of the property’s natural resources, including several miles of mangrove and Gulf of Mexico shoreline. Lee County approved the rezoning and the concept of the South Seas Plantation in 1973. Mariner's development began with Captiva Island proper and included a marina, golf course, and a variety of residential condominiums and single-family home sites. Some of the residential units were sold, and others remained in Mariner's ownership. Mariner marketed the rental of units at South Seas Plantation and served as rental agent for units not owned by Mariner. Development of the marina included dredging, and spoil was deposited on the northern tip of the smaller island, helping to create approximately 1.4 acres of upland there. In the 1950's or 1960's, a natural sand-and-shell berm along the eastern shore of the smaller island was built up and maintained by addition of fill material to create a two-track sand/shell road, which was used for vehicular access to the northern tip via an east-west road that divided the smaller island roughly in half and connected it to Captiva Island proper and the main road at South Seas Plantation. At a later point in time, the east-west portion of the road was paved for better access to a drinking water plant, a wastewater treatment plant, and a helicopter pad used by the Lee County Mosquito Control District. In 1985, Mariner received from SFWMD a “Master Stormwater Permit” for its entire development (the 1985 Permit). At that time, SFWMD did not regulate wetland impacts, only surface water management systems. The Department of Environmental Regulation regulated wetland impacts through its dredge and fill permit program, and there was no evidence relating to any dredge and fill permitting on the property. The 1985 Permit was for surface water management systems for construction in uplands on the property. No surface water management systems were needed or permitted in any wetlands. The 1985 Permit included a surface water management system for an 18-unit hotel on the spoil uplands of the northern tip of the smaller island. Permit drawings showed plans for a golf course on much of the remainder of the smaller island, which consisted mostly of wetlands. Access to the facilities was envisioned to be by water taxi, with emergency access via the utility and sand/shell road. Together, the hotel and golf course was to become a part of the resort known as Harbour Pointe. The 1985 Permit was modified several times in the years since its initial issuance, during which time Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, was amended to give SFWMD authority to regulate activities in waters and wetlands. However, until the pending application, none of the modifications had wetland impacts. In 1998, Mariner negotiated the sale of ten resort properties it owned in Florida, including South Seas Plantation, to Capstar, which later became Meristar S.S. Plantation Co., LLC (Meristar). Meristar was a real estate investment trust which specialized in hotels. Because it was not in the development business, Meristar was not interested in purchasing the as-yet undeveloped Harbour Pointe portion of South Seas Plantation, or Mariner's remaining development rights. As a result, Meristar purchased all the developed land on South Seas Plantation but not the approximately 78 acres of undeveloped land which is the subject of the pending application, or any of Mariner's development rights. Thus, after the sale of South Seas Plantation, Mariner retained its development rights and the 78 acres of undeveloped land, which are the subject of PDL's application. In 2002, Lee County issued an Administrative Interpretation which clarified that those development rights consisted of a maximum of 35 more residential units. Eleven units subsequently were built, leaving a maximum of 24 residential units when PDL filed its application in this case. The 78-acre Harbour Pointe site consists of mangrove wetlands, privately owned submerged lands, the 1.4-acre upland area at the northern tip of Harbour Pointe and another 1.4 acres of upland, which contain a Calusa Indian mound, known as the Chadwick Mound for its location west of Chadwick Bayou. While agreements between Meristar and PDL contemplate that PDL's subsequent development at Harbour Pointe would be marketed as part of the South Seas Resort and share some amenities and services, the parcels which comprise the Harbour Pointe development are the only undeveloped lands PDL owns or controls. PDL has no contractual or other legal right to develop on property owned by Meristar. Because it was modified several times since issuance, the 1985 Permit has not expired. However, Harbour Pointe never was constructed, and that part of the 1985 Permit expired in that Mariner lost its entitlement to proceed with construction. Instead, development of Harbour Pointe would require a permit modification under the new laws and rules, which included the regulation of wetland impacts. The Application and Proposed ERP In October 2003, PDL applied to SFWMD to further modify the 1985 Permit for construction of a water taxi dock for access to Harbour Pointe. After being informed by SFWMD that modifications to the 1985 Permit for development of Harbour Pointe would be reviewed under current laws and regulations, PDL withdrew the application. In April 2005 PDL applied for modification of the 1985 Permit to construct six 9,500 square-foot, four-plex condominium buildings (each two stories over parking, and accommodating units having 3,600-3,800 square feet of air-conditioned living space), a pool and spa, a tennis court, an access road, a filter marsh and surface water management facilities. Additionally, the site plan deleted all boat docks, except for a single water taxi slip and possibly a dock for launching kayaks and canoes and proposed a drawbridge across the inlet to Bryant Bayou to connect the project site to the South Seas Resort and eliminate the need for the emergency access road on the smaller island. This application described a development site of 7.4 acres, which included 4.8 acres of direct impacts to (i.e., destruction and fill of) mangroves and .1 acre of shading impacts from construction of the drawbridge. The proposed mitigation for the mangrove impacts included: restoration (by removal and replanting) of .6 acre of the north-south sand/shell road, with resulting enhancement of the adjacent preserved mangrove wetlands through improved hydrologic connection across the former shell/sand road and improved tidal connection to Pine Island Sound to the east; and preservation of the rest of PDL's property. The preserved areas would include: approximately 36 acres of mangrove wetlands adjacent to and south of the impacted wetlands (included the road to be restored) (Parcel A); 24.5 acres of mangrove wetlands south of the utility road and east of the narrow inlet to Chadwick Bayou (Parcel B); 9.3 acres of mangrove wetlands (7.9 acres) and tropical hardwoods (1.4 acres, which includes the Chadwick Mound), south of the utility road and west of the inlet to Chadwick Bayou, (Parcel C); .9 acre of mangrove wetlands to the west of Parcel C and the South Seas Resort main road (Parcel D); and .8 acre of mangrove wetlands separated from Parcel A by Bryant Bayou and adjacent to the South Seas Resort main road. A monitoring program lasting at least five years was offered to ensure success of the restoration and mitigation proposal. The application itself incorporated some reduction and elimination of wetland impacts. The total site consists of five separate tax parcels which could be developed into a number of single-family home sites. Such a development plan would have greater direct impacts than the proposed project and would require the shell/sand road to be significantly widened to meet current code requirements. By using the bridge as access, .11 acre of wetlands would be disturbed, as compared to 3.9 acres of total impact that would occur because of the widening the road. This approach results in the entire project causing less wetland impact than would occur from the use of the road alone. After the application was filed, PDL responded to two written requests for additional information and several other questions raised during meetings, phone conversations, and email exchanges with one or more SFWMD staff members. During this process, the application was amended. The tennis court was eliminated, and the filter marsh was replaced by a five dry detention ponds. In addition, the resulting development was concentrated more into the northern tip of the island to reduce and eliminate the greater secondary impacts (from more "edge effect") to the preserved wetlands to be expected from a more linear site plan. These changes reduced the footprint of the proposed project to 5.24 acres, the building size to 6,400 square feet each, the residential unit size to 2,400 to 2,600 square feet each, and wetland impacts to 2.98 acres, plus .11 acre of shading impacts from construction of the drawbridge. In addition, since the project was more concentrated at the northern tip, another tenth of an acre of the sand/shell road was to be restored. A conservation easement was offered for the 73.31 acres to be preserved, including 71.10 acres of wetlands, in Parcels A through E. PDL also offered to purchase .11 credits of offsite mitigation from the Little Pine Island Wetland Mitigation Bank (LPIWMB). On February 2, 2006, SFWMD's staff recommended approval of the amended application with 19 standard general conditions and 30 special conditions. Some of the special conditions in the Staff Report addressed prevention of erosion, shoaling, silt, turbidity, and water quality problems during construction or operation; remediation of any such problems not prevented; and restoration of any temporary wetland impacts. A pre-construction meeting was required to discuss construction methods, including construction dewatering. Although PDL indicated that dewatering would not be necessary for construction of the project, the Staff Report recommended that a dewatering plan be submitted before any dewatering occurred and noted that PDL would have to obtain all necessary Water Use authorizations, unless the work qualified for a No-Notice Short-Term Dewatering permit pursuant to Rule 40E- 20.302(3) or is exempt pursuant to Rule 40E-2.051.1 On February 8, 2006, SFWMD's Governing Board gave notice of its intent to approve the amended application with two additional conditions that were added to the Staff Report: PDL was required to apply for and receive a permit modification for the roadway necessary to access the project (i.e., the road leading from the South Seas Resort main road to the proposed drawbridge), and the applicant for the road to the drawbridge was required to document that proposed construction was consistent with the design of the master surface water management system, including land use and site grading assumptions; and a perpetual maintenance program for restored and preserved areas, including removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation in excess of five percent of total cover between regular maintenance activities, or such vegetation dominating any one section, was required to ensure integrity and viability. The parties interpreted the first of the two additional conditions to mean that construction access to build the project would be via the new roadway and drawbridge. On May 30, 2006, to address certain issues raised by the pending challenge to SFWMD's intended action, PDL further amended the application to substitute two wet retention ponds and three dry retention ponds for the five dry detention ponds and to make associated minor changes to the proposed surface water management system's water quality treatment methods to further reduce water quality impacts from the discharge of the system into the adjacent preserved wetlands. In addition, in view of disagreements among the parties as to the ability of PDL's onsite mitigation proposal to offset wetland impacts, PDL offered to increase offsite mitigation by purchasing as many additional credits from the LPIWMB as necessary to completely offset wetland impacts, as determined by the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM). Water Quantity Impacts Pursuant to Rule 40E-4.301(1), 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. Section 6.0 of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District (BOR), entitled Water Quantity Criteria, outlines the criteria that the applicant must meet for water quality at the project site. As outlined in BOR Section 6.2, the off-site discharge is limited to rates not causing adverse impacts to existing off- site properties. The proposed surface water management system consists of a series of swales, dry retention, and then a wet retention system with an outfall into the areas to the south. Ordinarily, stormwater runoff eventually will be absorbed into the ground. Any discharge associated with the system, typically only in conjunction with major rain events, will flow into a preserved wetland that will be hydrologically connected to Bryant Bayou and Pine Island Sound. As outlined in BOR Section 6.2, the off-site discharge rate is limited to historic discharge rates. As required by BOR Section 6.3, a storm event of 3-day duration and 25-year return frequency is used in computing off- site discharge rates. As required by BOR Section 6.4, building floors must be at or above the 100-year flood elevations. PDL conducted a hydrologic analysis of the existing condition of the property, analyzed the runoff patterns that would result during the 25-year rainfall event and then compared the development plan hydrologic analysis to the existing condition. The conclusion was that the development plan would not adversely affect offsite area. PDL analyzed a series of storm conditions for the protection of road elevations and the protection of finished floors. There are no off-site areas that contribute to runoff through this piece of property. The proposed system will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to waters and adjacent lands, flooding to onsite or offsite properties, or adversely impact existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Water Quality Impacts Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters so that State water quality standards will not be violated. BOR Section 5.0 is entitled Water Quality Criteria. BOR Section 5.1 states that projects shall be designed and operated so that offsite discharges will meet State water quality standards. BOR Section 5.2.1 requires that either retention or detention, or both retention and detention be provided in the overall system in one of the following three ways or equivalent combinations thereof: Wet detention volume shall be provided for the first inch of runoff from the developed project, or the total runoff of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, whichever is greater. Dry detention volume shall be provided equal to 75 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. Retention volume shall be provided equal to 50 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. Retention volume included in flood protection calculations requires a guarantee of long term operation and maintenance of system bleed-down ability. BOR Section 5.9 states that all new drainage projects will be evaluated based on the ability of the system to prevent degradation of receiving water and the ability to conform to State water quality standards. In the design of the system, PDL proposed a series of best management practices. The first is to treat runoff through grassed swale areas adjacent to buildings and some of the internal roadways. From there, the water would discharge through a series of dry retention areas where there would be further removal and treatment. The water would discharge through a proposed wet retention area prior to outfall under more significant rainfall events, southward into the preserved wetland area. Because of the hydrological connection from there to Bryant Bayou and Pine Island Sound, a more detailed evaluation was conducted. PDL's detailed evaluation included source control measures. The first one is a construction pollution prevention plan. PDL also proposed an urban storm water management plan. PDL is going to provide guidance to property owners about pesticide and fertilizer management control. The Applicant also submitted a street-sweeping proposal. The design of the system incorporates an additional 50 percent water quality treatment volume, over and above the requirements of the BOR. The wet retention system, located to the north of the proposed outfall structure, incorporates submerged aquatic vegetation. That is not a requirement of the District. It is an extra measure that will remove additional levels of pollutants prior to outfall. PDL proposed an urban stormwater management plan. The plan requires annual inspection of the water management facilities, and it must be documented that the system is functioning as originally designed and built. The stormwater management system is capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of functioning as proposed. The stormwater management system satisfies the District's water quality criteria. Petitioners and Intervenor criticized the method used by PDL's water quality consultant, Dr. Harvey Harper, for projecting and evaluating water quality impacts to be expected from PDL's stormwater management design. They contended that the so-called "Harper method" has been criticized by other experts, none of whom testified. Dr. Harper ably defended himself against the criticism leveled at him. He testified that most if not all of the components he has incorporated into his evaluation method are not new but rather have been accepted and used by experts in his field for years. He also explained that he refined his evaluation method in response to some early criticism and that the method he used in this case has been peer-reviewed and accepted by the Department of Environmental Protection for evaluation of stormwater design criteria. While some of the assumptions incorporated in his evaluation method are simple averages of a relatively small samples, and sometimes averages of averages, Dr. Harper was confident in the ability of his method to accurately evaluate the expected water quality impacts from PDL's system. While there is potential for error in any projection, Dr. Harper's evaluation provided reasonable assurances that utilization of PDL's proposed stormwater management and treatment method will not result in violation of any State water quality standards or significantly degrade the water quality of Bryant Bayou or Pine Island Sound. Value of Wetland and Surface Water Functions In general, as part of the CHNE, the mangrove wetlands to be impacted by the proposed ERP are very important. The CHNE Coast Conservation Management Plan identifies three major threats to the estuary and local ecosystem: fish and wildlife habitat loss; water quality degradation; and hydrological alteration. The plan calls for the preservation of mangroves within the CHNE. A wide array of wildlife uses the habitat in the vicinity of the mangrove wetlands to be impacted. The site is in an important coastal fly-way for migratory birds, including numerous species of waterfowl and songbirds that migrate across the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico to and from South and Central America. The project area also provides habitat for several listed wildlife species, including the American crocodile, wood stork, and West Indian manatee. The mangrove wetlands that will be impacted directly and indirectly by the proposed ERP are in relatively good condition and are very important due primarily to their location near Redfish Pass at the northern end of Captiva Island and to their relationship to the rest of the relatively large area of contiguous and relatively undisturbed wetlands in Parcels A through E. These attributes make them especially important as a nursery ground for several valuable fish species. Existing impacts attributable to the spoil and other disturbances in the adjacent uplands, the northernmost extent of the sand/shell road, and the South Seas Plantation/Resort development to the west across the inlet to Bryant Bayou keep these impacted wetlands from being of the very highest quality. Clearly, and obviously, the project will destroy and fill 2.98 acres of these wetlands. Indirect (secondary) impacts to the adjacent preserved wetlands will result from alteration of hydrology of the 2.98 acres of directly impacted wetlands. Instead of sheet-flowing across the uplands on the northern tip of Harbour Pointe into those wetlands, surface water on the 5.24- acre development project will be directed into a series of swales, to the dry retention ponds, and to the wet retention ponds with an outfall to the adjacent preserved wetlands to the south. Secondary impacts from the Harbour Pointe project will be similar to the existing secondary impacts to the 2.98 acres attributable to the adjacent spoil and the South Seas Plantation/Resort development, if not somewhat greater due to the absence of any buffer like the inlet. On the other hand, PDL's mitigation proposal will restore .7 acre of wetlands where the northern end of the north- south sand/shell road now exists. Eventually, the restored wetland would be expected to become an extension of the existing, adjacent red and basin black mangrove forest. In addition, the resulting improved hydrologic connection to Pine Island Sound will enhance the value of functions in the preserved wetlands, including possibly expanding the existing fish nursery and making it accessible to fish larvae and juvenile fish entering from the east as well as from the west via Bryant Bayou. There was much debate during the hearing as to whether the sand/shell road is natural or man-made and whether it is reducing what otherwise would be the natural tidal and hydrologic connection between the wetlands to the west of the road and Pine Island Sound. As indicated, a prior owner added fill material to the natural sand and shell berm in the 1950's and 1960's to create better vehicular access. See Finding 9, supra. The evidence was reasonably persuasive that those man-made changes have altered hydrology and tidal connection to some extent and that the restoration project will enhance the value and functions of the preserved wetlands to some extent. Impacts to the value of wetland and surface water functions, and corresponding mitigation for impacts, are required to be assessed using UMAM. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-345.100. While the mitigation assessment method might be uniform, its application and results are not. Three different experts used UMAM with differing results. SFWMD's expert, Mr. Cronyn, and PDL's consultants, Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc. (KLECE), conferred after their initial assessments, resulting in changed results by both (as well as correction of errors in initial scoring by Mr. Cronyn.) Dave Ceilley, an expert for Petitioners and Intervenor, scored the 2.98 acre impact area significantly higher in its current state than the final score of either Mr. Cronyn or KLECE, resulting in a higher functional loss from its destruction and filling. He also gave no credit for restoration of the sand/shell road, in contrast to KLECE and Mr. Cronyn, and scored PDL's mitigation proposal as it affected 36.6 acres of preserved wetlands (essentially, Parcel A) as a functional loss instead of a functional gain, as scored by KLECE and Mr. Cronyn. Mr. Ceilley also scored PDL's mitigation proposal as it affected 24.5 acres of preserved wetlands (Parcel B) as a functional loss instead of a functional gain, as scored by KLECE and Mr. Cronyn. Finally, he gave no credit for preservation of Parcels A through E via a conservation easement because he was under the mistaken impression that the land already was under a conservation easement in favor of Lee County. (Actually, PDL had agreed to preserve 65 acres of mangrove forest in return for the right to develop Harbour Pointe, although a conservation easement actually was imposed on only about six acres. Although not identified, the 65 acres probably would have included the preserved wetlands in the proposed ERP.) Mr. Cronyn gave credit for preservation of Parcels B through E. KLECE did not claim credit, because KLECE did not think it was necessary, but KLECE accepts Mr. Cronyn's assessment of those parcels. Mr. Ceilley's recent onsite field work was extremely limited, and much of his assessment was based general knowledge of the area and dated (14-year old) onsite field work. In addition, this was the first "real-life" UMAM assessment performed by Mr. Ceilley. His only other use of UMAM was for practice in training. Finally, his assessment was entirely independent without the input of any other consultants to aid him. In contrast, both KLECE and Mr. Cronyn had extensive prior experience using UMAM. In addition, KLECE functioned as a three- man team in performing its UMAM assessments and talked out any initial discrepancies and disagreements (albeit with Mr. Erwin being the final arbiter). KLECE and Mr. Cronyn also consulted with one another, as well as experts in other related fields before finalizing their respective UMAM assessments. KLECE was able to draw on field work conducted during over 200 man-hours onsite in recent years. While KLECE was the retained consultant and agent for the applicant in this case, Mr. Ceilley conceded that Mr. Erwin adheres to high ethical standards. Petitioners and Intervenor were critical of credit given in the UMAM assessments performed by Mr. Cronyn for preservation of Parcels B through E. (KLECE did not claim credit for their preservation in its UMAM assessment.) Petitioners and Intervenor contend that PDL already has agreed to preserve the wetlands in those parcels in return for the ability to utilize the remaining 24 residential units of development rights at Harbour Pointe and that development of the Chadwick Mound is unlikely. Actually, as found, PDL's agreement with the County only specified six of the 65 acres of wetlands to be preserved. Besides, the preserved wetlands in the proposed ERP would implement the agreement with the County. As for the Chadwick Mound, preservation without the proposed ERP is not a certainty, although residential development there would be difficult now that its existence is common knowledge. In any event, the relative unlikelihood of development in Parcels A through E, especially after development of 24 units at Harbour Pointe, was taken into consideration by Mr. Cronyn in determining the amount of credit to be given for their preservation. Taking all the evidence into account, Mr. Cronyn's UMAM assessment of the value of wetland functions with and without the proposed ERP are accepted. According to his assessment, the proposed ERP will result in a functional loss of .34 functional units, meaning an equivalent amount of mitigation credit would have to be purchased from the LPIWMB to offset wetland impacts. Based on the functional assessment used to permit that mitigation bank, approximately an additional .9 of a mitigation bank credit would be needed, in addition to the .11 already offered. The evidence as to cumulative impacts did not clearly define the pertinent drainage basin. Logically, the pertinent drainage basin either would encompass all land draining to surface waters connected to Pine Island Sound, which would include Little Pine Island, or would be limited to the land that is subject to the proposed ERP. If the former, all offsetting mitigation would be within the same drainage basin. If the latter, there would be no cumulative impacts, since the proposed ERP would complete all development. Reduction and Elimination of Wetland Impacts According to BOR Section 4.2.1.1, if a proposed surface water management system will result in adverse impacts to wetland or other surface water functions such that it does not meet the requirements of Sections 4.2.2 through 4.2.3.7, the District must consider whether the applicant has implemented practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate such adverse impacts. The term "modification" does not mean not implementing the system in some form, or requiring a project that is significantly different in type or function, such as a commercial project instead of a residential project. Elimination and reduction also does not require an applicant to suffer extreme and disproportionate hardship--for example, having to construct a ten mile-long bridge to avoid half an acre of wetland impacts. However, Anita Bain, SFWMD's director of ERP regulation, agreed that, in interpreting and applying BOR Section 4.2.1.1, "the more important a wetland is the greater extent you would require elimination and reduction of impact." As reflected in Findings 17-19, supra, PDL explored several design modifications in order to reduce and eliminate impacts to wetland and other surface water functions. However, several options for further reducing and eliminating wetland impacts were declined. PDL declined to eliminate the swimming pool and move one or more buildings to the pool's location at the extreme northern tip of Harbour Pointe because that would not be a practicable means of reducing the Harbour Pointe footprint. First, the undisputed testimony was that a residential building could not be sited as close to the water's edge as a swimming pool could. Second, because it would block the view from some of Meristar's residential properties, and Meristar has the legal right to approve or disapprove PDL's development on Harbour Pointe. PDL declined to reduce the number of buildings because, without also reducing the number and/or size of the residential units, reducing the number of buildings would make it difficult if not impossible to accommodate all cul-de-sacs required by Lee County for use by emergency vehicles and meet parking needs beneath the buildings, as proposed. (In addition, it would reduce the number of prime corner residential units, which are more marketable and profitable.) PDL declined to further reduce unit size because a further reduction to 2,000 square feet would only reduce the footprint of the six proposed buildings by a total of 5,000 square feet--less than a ninth of an acre. Reducing unit size to much less than 2,000 square feet would make it difficult if not impossible to market the condos as "luxury" units, which is what PDL says "the market" is demanding at this time (and also what PDL would prefer, since it would maximize PDL's profits for the units.) But it was not proven that smaller condos could not be sold at a reasonable profit. PDL declined to reduce the number of condo units at Harbour Pointe (while maintaining the conservation easement on the remainder of PDL's acreage, which would not allow PDL to develop all of the 24 dwelling units it wants to develop and is entitled to develop on its 78 acres, according to Lee County). However, it was not proven that such an option for further reducing and eliminating wetland impacts would not be technically feasible, would endanger lives or property, or would not be economically viable. With respect to economic viability, SFWMD generally does not examine financial statements or profit-and-loss pro formas as part of an analysis of a site plan's economic viability. This type of information is rarely provided by an applicant, and SFWMD does not ask for it. As usual, SFWMD's reduction and elimination analysis in this case was conducted without the benefit of such information. Rather, when PDL represented that any reduction in the number of units would not be economically viable, SFWMD accepted the representation, judging that PDL had done enough elimination and reduction based on the amount of wetland impacts compared to the amount of wetlands preserved, in comparison with other projects SFWMD has evaluated. As Ms. Bain understands it, "it's almost like we know it when we see it; in that, you wouldn't ask an applicant to build a ten-mile bridge to avoid a half an acre wetland impact, so something that's so extreme that's obvious, rather than how much profit would a particular applicant make on a particular project." Although SFWMD did not inquire further into the economic viability of modifications to reduce and eliminate wetland and surface water impacts, Petitioners and Intervenor raised the issue and discovered some profit-and-loss pro formas that were presented and addressed during the hearing. A pro forma prepared in August 2003 projected a profit of $2.79 million for the first 8 of 12 units and an additional $1.72 million profit on the next four units (taking into account construction of a drawbridge and road to the west at a cost of $1.8 million). This would result in a total profit of $4.51 million, less $800,000 for a reserve to pay for maintenance of the drawbridge (which PDL said was required under timeshare laws). Another pro forma prepared in February 2004 projected profits of $11.99 million on 16 "big-sized" units (3,000 square feet), $11.81 million on 20 "mid-sized" units (2,200 square feet), and $13.43 million on 24 "mixed-size" units (16 "mid- sized" and 8 "small-sized" at 1,850 square feet), all taking into account the construction of the drawbridge and road at a cost of $1.8 million. After production of the earlier pro formas during discovery in this case, PDL prepared a pro forma on June 7, 2006. The 2006 pro forma projected net profit to be $4.9 million, before investment in the property. However, PFL did not make its investment in the property part of the evidence in the case. In addition, Petitioners and Intervenor questioned the validity of the 2006 pro forma. PDL answered some of the questions better than others. To arrive at the projected net profit, PDL projected significantly (33%) higher construction costs overall. The cost of the drawbridge and road to the west was projected to increase from $1.8 million to $2.5 million. Based on its experience, PDL attributed the increase in part to the effect of rebuilding activity after Hurricane Charlie and in part to the effect of Sanibel Causeway construction (both increased overweight charges and limitations on when construction vehicles could cross the causeway, resulting construction work having to be done at night, at a significantly higher cost). At the hearing, PDL did not present any up-to-date market surveys or other supporting information on construction costs, and the Sanibel Causeway construction is expected to be completed before construction on the Harbour Pointe project would begin. In addition, without a full enough explanation, PDL replaced the bridge operation and maintenance reserve of $800,000 with an unspecified bridge reserve fund of $2 million. On the revenue side of the 2006 pro forma, gross sales of $1.9 million per unit were projected, which is less than PDL was projecting per square foot in February 2004, despite the assumed increased construction costs. PDL also attributes this to the effects of Hurricane Charlie. Again, there were no market surveys or other information to support the pricing assumptions. Besides predicting lower price potential, the 2006 pro forma deducts a pricing contingency of $2.3 million. PDL did not calculate or present evidence on whether it could make a profit building and selling 16 or 20 units, thereby eliminating a building or two (and perhaps some road and stormwater facility requirements) from the project's footprint. The absence of that kind of evidence, combined with the unanswered questions about the 2006 pro forma for the maximum number of units PDL possibly can build, constituted a failure to give reasonable assurance that wetland and surface water impacts would be reduced and eliminated by design modifications to the extent practicable, especially given the very high importance of the wetlands being impacted. Public Interest Test An ERP applicant who proposes to construct a system located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters must provide reasonable assurances that the project will “not be contrary to the public interest, or if such an activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water, that the activity will be clearly in the public interest.” § 373.414(1)(a), Fla. Stat.; Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a); and SFWMD BOR Section 4.2.3. This is known as the “Public Interest Test,” and is determined by balancing seven criteria, which need not be weighted equally. See Lott v. City of Deltona and SJRWMD, DOAH Case Nos. 05-3662 and 05-3664, 2006 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 106 (DOAH 2006). The Public Interest criteria are as follows: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. There are no property owners adjacent to the site, and the closest property owners to the site are located across the inlet which connects Bryant Bayou to Pine Island Sound. While mangrove wetlands generally provide maximum protection from hurricanes, it does not appear from the evidence that existing conditions would provide appreciably more protection that the conditions contemplated by the proposed ERP. Otherwise, the project would not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, or property of others. Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. The proposed ERP would impact (fill and destroy) 2.98 acres of very important, high quality mangrove wetlands. Even with the restoration or creation of .7 acre of probable former wetlands and improvements in the hydrologic connection of the 36.5-acre preserved wetland (Parcel A) to Pine Island Sound, the proposed ERP probably will have a negative effect on the conservation of fish and wildlife, including listed species. However, the negative effect would not be considered "adverse" if the elimination and reduction requirements of BOR 4.2.1.1 are met. Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The proposed drawbridge will be constructed over the inlet connecting Bryant Bayou with Pine Island Sound, a distance of approximately 65 feet. Boaters use the inlet for navigation. However, by its nature, a drawbridge allows for and not adversely affect navigation. The proposed ERP does not contain specifics on operation of the drawbridge, but PDL's consultant, Mr. Erwin, testified that there would be no adverse effect on navigation, assuming that the bridge would remain in the open position between use for crossings by road. The drawbridge would not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The question whether the proposed ERP will adversely affect fishing or recreational values is informed by both the UMAM functional assessment and the reduction and elimination analysis. If impacts to wetlands and surface waters are reduced and eliminated, and offset by mitigation, there should be no significant adverse effects on fishing and recreational values. Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature. The proposed development is permanent in nature. vi. Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, Florida Statutes. There are no significant archaeological resources on the Harbour Pointe project site. Although shell scatter left by the Calusa Indians has been found on Parcel A, they have been evaluated in the permit application process by Corbett Torrence, an archeologist, and found to be of limited historical or archaeological value. The reduced scope of the project avoids most of these areas. The proposed ERP will, however, enhance significant archaeological resources by placing a conservation easement on Parcel C, which is the site of the Chadwick Mound, one of the largest Calusa Indian mounds in Lee County. Further studies of this site could lead to a much better understanding of the Calusa culture. This Indian mound is a very valuable historical treasure, and its protection through inclusion in a conservation easement is very much in the public interest. vii. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. This subject also was considered in the reduction and elimination analysis and in the UMAM functional assessment. As in the Findings the current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by the areas affected by the proposed activity are very valuable. That is why the reduction and elimination analysis is particularly important in this case. Assuming appropriate reduction and elimination, mitigation according to the UMAM assessment can offset unavoidable impacts to the functions performed by the areas affected by the proposed activity. Standing of CCA, SCCF, and CSWF CCA, SCCF, and CSWF each has at least 25 current members residing within Lee County and was formed at least one year prior to the date of the filing of PDL's application. CCA's mission statement includes protection of "our residents' safety, the island ecology, and the unique island ambience . . . ." CCA also is dedicated to "preserving and expanding, where possible, the amount of native vegetation on Captive Island" and preservation of natural resources and wildlife habitat on and around Sanibel and Captiva Islands. SCCF's mission is the preservation of natural resources and wildlife habitat on and around Sanibel and Captiva. It manages just over 1,800 acres of preserved lands, including mangrove forest habitat similar to that being proposed for development by PDL. Management activities involve invasive non- native plant control, surface water management, prescribed burning, native plant habitat restoration and wildlife monitoring. CSWF's purpose is to sustain and protect the natural environment of Southwest Florida through policy advocacy, research, land acquisition and other lawful means. Its four core programs are: environmental education; scientific research; wildlife rehabilitation; and environmental policy. Of CCA's 464 members, approximately 115 live within the boundaries of South Seas Plantation/Resort. Approximately 277 of SCCF's 3,156 members live on Captiva Island, and 40 live within the boundaries of South Seas Plantation/Resort. The members of CCA and SCCF who own property on Captiva Island rely on the mangrove systems for protection from storms. A substantial number of the Captiva Island residents and the other members of CCA and SCCF engage in recreational activities in the vicinity of PDL's property, including boating, fishing, bird-watching, wildlife observation, and nature study that would be adversely affected by significant water quality and wetland impacts from the proposed ERP. CSWF has 5,600 family memberships, approximately 400 in Lee County, and 14 on Sanibel. No members live on Captiva Island. There was no evidence as to how many of CSWF's members use the natural resources in the vicinity of the proposed ERP for recreational purposes or otherwise would be affected if there are water quality and wetland impacts from the proposed ERP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the proposed ERP be denied; however, if wetland and surface water impacts are reduced and eliminated to the extent practicable, the proposed ERP should be issued with the additional conditions, as represented by PDL's witnesses: that the proposed drawbridge be left drawn except when in use for road access; that construction access be via the proposed drawbridge only; and that there be no construction dewatering. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th of November, 2006.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Petitioner is entitled to an environmental resource permit and modified sovereignty submerged land lease for the construction of commercial marinas and related structures at Petitioners property in Lee County, Florida. PRELIMARY STATEMENT On October 23, 2006, Petitioner applied to the South Florida Water Management District (“District”) for an environmental resource permit (“ERP”). Petitioner also sought modification of its sovereignty submerged land lease ("Lease") from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees). On September 28, 2007, the District issued a Staff Report recommending that the ERP and Lease be denied. The Governing Board of the District adopted the staff’s recommendation on October 11, 2007. On October 12, 2007, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing challenging the agency action. The District referred the petition to DOAH to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The case was abated for an extended period of time during which the parties attempted to settle their disputes. In October 2009, Intervenors' petition to intervene was granted. Intervenors were subsequently granted leave to amend their petition. Following notice from the parties that they were unable to settle their disputes, a final hearing was scheduled. At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of: Michael Morris, Jr.; David Depew; and Hans Wilson, accepted as an expert in ocean engineering, environmental sciences and navigation. Petitioner presented the testimony of Anita Bain through the introduction of her deposition. Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 8, 9, 14 through 16, 19, 20, 24, 26, 30, 34, 35, 40 through 43, 46 through 50, 52, and 56 through 58, were admitted into evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit 35 was accepted as a proffer. The District presented the testimony of: Holly Bauer- Windhorst, accepted as an expert in environmental biology; Melinda Parrott, accepted as an expert in marine biology and environmental impact analysis; Anita Bain, accepted as an expert in biology and environmental impact assessments; Robert Brantly, a professional engineer and Director of the Department's Bureau of Coastal Engineering; and Mary Duncan, accepted as an expert in biology and manatee impact assessment. The testimony of Peter Eckenrode was presented through his deposition. The District's Exhibits 5, 10, 12, and 14 through 18 were admitted into evidence. Intervenors presented the testimony of: Leonardo Nero, accepted as an expert in marine biology, seagrass conservation, oceanography, navigation, and vessel operation and maintenance; Gary Shelton; Sally Eastman; and Christine Desjarlais-Leuth. Intervenors' Exhibits 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 14 were admitted into evidence. The two-volume Transcript of the hearing was filed with DOAH. The parties filed proposed recommended orders. Petitioner filed revised pages to its proposed recommended order to correct scrivener's errors. Petitioner moved to strike an issue that was raised for the first time in the District and Intervenors' Joint Proposed Recommended Order. The motion to strike is granted as discussed in the Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Highpoint Tower Technology, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its mailing address at 800 South Osprey Avenue, Building B, Sarasota, Florida 34246. Petitioner is the owner of property located in Section 25, Township 45 South, Range 22 East, in Lee County, Florida, consisting of approximately eight acres. The property is on Bokeelia Island, on the northern tip of Pine Island. Petitioner is the applicant for the ERP and Lease which is the subject of this proceeding. The District is a regional water management agency with powers and duties established in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Its principal office is located at 3301 Gun Club Road in West Palm Beach. The District regulates certain construction activities in waters of the state pursuant to Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40E. The District has also been delegated authority from the Board of Trustees to process applications for submerged land leases for structures and activities on or over sovereignty submerged lands. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051. Intervenor Sally Eastman resides on property adjacent to the proposed project. Intervenors, Christine Desjarlias-Leuth and Ron Leuth, own and reside on riparian property approximately 400 feet from the proposed project. Intervenor Gary Shelton owns and resides on riparian property near the proposed project. All Intervenors use the waters of Charlotte Harbor for water-based recreational activities, including fishing, swimming, boating, wading, and nature observation. The Affected Waterbodies The north side of Petitioner's property is adjacent to Charlotte Harbor. The south side of the property is adjacent to Back Bay. Both waterbodies are within the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. The aquatic preserve is an Outstanding Florida Water. Aquatic preserves are so designated because they have exceptional biological, aesthetic, and scientific value. It is the intent of the Legislature that aquatic preserves be set aside forever as sanctuaries for the benefit of the public. See § 258.36, Fla. Stat. Aquatic preserves were established for the purpose of being preserved in an essentially natural or existing condition so that their aesthetic, biological and scientific values may endure for the enjoyment of future generations. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.001(1). Charlotte Harbor in this location is a large expanse of open water with 10 to 12 miles of fetch to the north, making it subject to high winds and waves during storms. The water bottom of Charlotte Harbor is sandy. There are many areas of Charlotte Harbor with "prop scars," which are caused when boats travel in shallow waters and impact the bottom with boat motor propellers. There are seagrasses growing in the vicinity of Petitioner's Charlotte Harbor shoreline, mostly Thallasia testudinum (turtle grass) and Syringodium filiforme (manatee grass). Healthy turtle grass beds are growing near the proposed marina structures in Charlotte Harbor. There was some dispute about whether the turtle grass is 12 inches or 18 inches in length. The more persuasive evidence is that mature turtle grass is 18 inches in length. If there is turtle grass of shorter length in the area of the proposed project, it will eventually mature to a length of 18 inches. These seagrass communities qualify as a Resource Protection Area ("RPA") 1, which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.003(54) as "[a]reas in aquatic preserves which have resources of the highest quality and condition for that area." There is also small patch of soft whip coral offshore, as well as some sea lettuce and interstitial algae on the sandy bottom. No water quality data for this area of Charlotte Harbor was presented by Petitioner. West Indian manatees are known to forage and move in the area near Petitioner's Charlotte Harbor shoreline, as well as in Back Bay. The manatee is a "listed" species. Back Bay is a small, semi-enclosed bay. It is shallow, averaging around four feet in depth at mean low water. A narrow passage known as Jug Creek leads out of Back Bay to Pine Island Sound. There are no seagrasses along Petitioner's shoreline on Back Bay, but there are seagrasses elsewhere in Back Bay. There are many prop scars in the shallower areas of Back Bay. The water bottom in Back Bay is silty and organic. It can be easily stirred up by boats and propeller action. No water quality data for Back was presented by Petitioner. Existing Structures A public access fishing pier extends about 400 feet from Petitioner's property into Charlotte Harbor, generally forming a "T." The pier has existed for decades and was one of the first landing and offloading piers in the region for commercial fishing activities, with fish houses on the adjacent uplands. The riparian owner obtained title to the submerged lands beneath the fishing pier by operation of the Butler Act, which vests title in the riparian upland owner to submerged lands if structures were erected over or upon the submerged lands before 1951. Therefore, a submerged land lease from the Board of Trustees is not required for the fishing pier. However, Petitioner obtained a submerged lands lease in 2000 for two recreational boat slips along the east side of the pier. There is a seawall along Petitioner's Charlotte Harbor shoreline. Petitioner's upland was formerly occupied by approximately 120 mobile homes, which were served by septic tanks. The mobile homes were removed two or three years ago and Petitioner obtained a separate environmental resource permit from the District in May 2006 for a proposed new residential and commercial development on the uplands called Bokeelia Harbor Resort. Construction of the new development, which would include single-family homes, multi-family buildings, a swimming facility, and a restaurant, has not yet begun. In Back Bay, Petitioner's shoreline has a seawall and a number of finger piers extending off the seawall. Petitioner has two submerged land leases in Back Bay, one that authorizes 50 boat slips and another that authorizes 10 slips. Only about a dozen boats have been using these slips in recent years. There are two boat ramps on Petitioner's property for access to Back Bay. The record evidence leaves unclear whether the ramps were for the exclusive use of the former mobile home residents or were used by the general public. The historical and current use of the boat ramps, in terms of the average number of launches per month or year, was not established in the record. There is a man-made, seawalled canal or basin on Petitioner's property that connects to Back Bay. There are piers and slips in the canal, which Petitioner claims could accommodate about 30 boats. Aerial photographs of the canal indicate that 20 to 25 boats is a more reasonable estimate. The water bottom of the canal is privately owned and, therefore, does not require a submerged lands lease. Petitioner presented inconsistent information about the number of existing boat slips in Back Bay. Petitioner claimed that there are as many as 108 slips in Back Bay. That number seems impossible, given that only 60 slips are authorized by the two submerged land leases. There was no exhibit presented to show where the 108 slips are located. The Department of Community Affairs determined that 85 slips in Back Bay were "vested" for purposes of the development of regional impact review program in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, which means the slips were constructed before July 1, 1973. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission thinks there are now 82 boat slips in Back Bay. The Department of Environmental Protection thinks there are 80. Petitioner had a motive to exaggerate the number of existing slips. The unsupported testimony of Petitioner's witness that there are 108 slips in Back Bay was not substantial evidence.1/ It is found that Petitioner currently has approximately 82 boat slips in Back Bay. Petitioner is not currently controlling the use of the slips in Charlotte Harbor and Back Bay, such as by limiting the size or draft of vessels. There are no signs that inform boaters about seagrasses or manatees. There are currently no sewage pump-out facilities. Petitioner is not currently controlling boaters' uses of fuel or other chemicals. However, no evidence was presented to show the extent of any past or current polluting activities. Petitioner sought to show that the septic tanks that had been removed from the upland property were a source of nutrients and other pollutants to Charlotte Harbor. The District and Intervenors objected to this evidence as irrelevant because the ERP and Lease applications do not involve the removal of the septic tanks and their replacement with a central sewage collection system, and because Petitioner removed the septic tanks some years ago as part of its re-development of the uplands. The objection was sustained, but Petitioner was allowed to make a proffer that the removal of the septic tanks improved the water quality of the adjacent waterbodies. The issue was one of relevancy alone, because it was apparently undisputed that the removal of the septic tanks resulted in some unquantified improvement in the water quality of adjacent waterbodies.2/ The Proposed Project Petitioner proposes to construct new commercial docks and related structures (marinas) in both Charlotte Harbor and Back Bay. The Charlotte Harbor marina would have 24 boat slips, which is 22 more slips than currently exist. The Back Bay marina would have 43 slips, which is 39 fewer slips than currently exist. Overall, the proposed project would result in a reduction of about 17 slips. Petitioner would make all boat slips in the marinas available to the public on a “first come - first served” basis. Some slips would be leased on an annual basis. An unspecified number of slips would be for day rental, primarily to accommodate patrons of the restaurant on the uplands. In Charlotte Harbor, a long pier would extend to a dock configuration that forms a marina basin, with concrete panels on three sides extending from above the water line to below the sandy bottom to act as a breakwater. The opening into the marina basin for ingress and egress by boaters would be to the southeast. On the west side of the marina basin would be a 1500 square foot fishing platform. Slips 1 through 5 would be along the east side of the pier and would have boat hoists to raise the boats out of the water. Because seagrasses are growing near slips 1 through 5, Petitioner agreed to limit the draft of boats using these slips to 30 inches. Slips 6 through 24 would be within the protected marina basin. These slips are intended to accommodate larger boats than the kinds of boats that can safely navigate in the shallow waters of Back Bay. However, boats using slips 6 through 24 would not be allowed to have drafts greater than five feet. These slips would not have hoists. All the new slips in Back Bay are designed for a maximum boat length of 30 feet, but the slips vary with regard to maximum allowed draft, from 16 inches to three feet, depending on the depth of the adjacent waters. The Charlotte Harbor marina would extend about 100 feet more waterward so that it would be 500 feet from the shoreline, which is the maximum extension allowed under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.004(5)(a)1. No boats slips or mooring would be allowed beyond the 500-foot limit. The canal connected to Back Bay would be filled in, and three additional residential units would be placed on the uplands created by the filling. Petitioner suggested that the canal has poor water quality, such as low dissolved oxygen, and that elimination of the canal would be a benefit for the water quality of Back Bay. Petitioner presented no water quality data to support this allegation, but the elimination of the canal would more likely than not have some small water quality benefit for Back Bay. The boat ramps on the upland would be removed. A new seawall would be installed along Petitioner's Back Bay shoreline and approximately 400 reef balls would be placed in the water along the face of the seawall. The reef balls are three feet tall and four feet wide, made of cement, and have openings. It is expected that oysters and barnacles would colonize the reef balls. Because there are oysters, barnacles, and other filter feeders in Back Bay, that expectation is a reasonable one. Fish are likely to be attracted to the reef balls. Petitioner contends that the reef balls, after they are colonized by oysters, will provide water quality benefits, because oysters filter the water when feeding. Although there was some support in the record for this general proposition, there was no evidence presented about the types of pollutants that can be removed from the water by oysters, or the level of water quality improvement that reasonably could be expected. Reef balls have been used at another marina in the region and were determined by the regulatory agencies to provide some public benefit, but Intervenors' expert, Leonard Nero, believes that the value of reef balls is exaggerated. It is his opinion that reef balls do not function like a natural habitat because there is no primary food production or sustainable biological interrelationships. It is found that the proposed reef balls would provide some small environmental benefits to the Back Bay ecosystem. In Back Bay, there are currently no channel markers except in Jug Creek. Petitioner proposes to provide channel markers so that boats entering and leaving the marina would be guided away from shallower waters and away from seagrasses. Petitioner prepared a Marina Management Plan to govern the operation of the marinas, including the use of the slips. The management plan requires waste receptacles and restricts the use and storage of fuel and other chemicals. The plan also includes an education program to inform marina users about water quality and habitat protection. A harbor master would be employed to oversee the operation of the marinas. The harbor master would be responsible for assuring compliance with the requirements in the Marina Management Plan, including maximum boat drafts, fuel spill prevention and clean-up, proper use of sewage pump-out facilities, prevention of hull cleaning and use of deleterious boat cleaning products, and proper disposal of fish cleaning wastes. The harbor master's office would be located on the docks over Charlotte Harbor. The District and Intervenors are not impressed with Petitioner's proposal to employ a harbor master to control marina activities because the harbor master would not be at the marinas 24 hours a day and could not be present at both marinas at the same time. However, the employment of a harbor master would strengthen the use and enforcement of the Marina Management Plan. There would be educational signs for boaters with information about manatees and seagrasses. Petitioner proposes to install sewage pump-out facilities at both marinas that would be connected to the sewage collection system that will serve the upland development. The proposed project includes modifying the proposed upland residential development to add three residential units and a cul de sac, and enlarging a stormwater retention area to accommodate the associated stormwater impacts. Project Impacts Seagrasses It is usually difficult and sometimes impossible for seagrasses to re-colonize an area that has been prop-scarred. Seagrasses are the primary food of manatees, so an adverse impact to seagrasses is an adverse impact to manatees. The seagrasses to the east of the entrance of the proposed Charlotte Harbor marina are subject to disturbance from boats entering and leaving the marina. Boats approaching or departing from slips 1 through 5 are likely to cross these seagrasses from time to time. The water depth in the area of slips 1 and 2 is about minus five feet (mean low water) at the shallowest. For any seagrasses growing at minus five feet, and assuming the seagrasses are 18 inches in length, the clearance between the bottom of a boat with a 30-inch draft and the top of seagrasses would be 12 inches at mean low water. District and Intervenors are also concerned about the potential impacts to the seagrasses near the proposed Charlotte Harbor marina from large boats using slips 6 through 24, which could have a draft of five feet. About 260 feet to the east of Petitioner's pier is another pier, known as Captain Mac's Pier. There are seagrasses between the two piers. Boaters wanting to reach slips 6 through 24 would have to navigate past Petitioner's marina basin, into the area between Petitioner's pier and Cap'n Mac's pier, and then make nearly a 180 degree turn to enter the marina basin. The more persuasive record evidence indicates that this maneuver would sometimes be difficult for inexperienced or inattentive boaters even in relatively calm conditions. In windy and storm conditions, the maneuver would be difficult even for experienced boaters. If there are tethered buoys marking the limits of the seagrasses, as proposed by Petitioner, the buoys would add to the navigational challenge. The preponderance of the credible evidence shows that it is likely that boaters in vessels with drafts greater than 30 inches, when entering or leaving the marina basin, would sometimes cross the seagrasses and do damage to the seagrasses and other submerged resources. Another potential adverse impact to seagrasses is shading caused by structures. Shading caused by the existing fishing pier in Charlotte Harbor appears to have impeded the growth of seagrasses in some areas near the pier. The proposed breakwater for the Charlotte Harbor marina presents a relatively unique shading issue. Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that shading from the proposed structures in Charlotte Harbor would not adversely affect seagrasses. The District and Intervenors contend that the proposed project would also cause adverse impacts to seagrasses in Back Bay. However, because Petitioner has reduced the numbers of slips in Back Bay and eliminated the boat ramps, the boat traffic in Back Bay should be reduced. Furthermore, Petitioner would restrict boat drafts and mark a channel to guide boaters to deeper waters and away from seagrasses. Therefore, the proposed project would likely reduce the risk of damage to seagrasses and other submerged resources in Back Bay. The District and Intervenors describe Petitioner's proposal to install channel markers in Back Bay as too "tentative" because there is another developer that has proposed to install channel markers and Petitioner's proposal is to install the markers if the other developer does not. However, the details of the channel marking are in evidence. If the channel marking is made a condition for construction of the proposed project, it can be considered a part of the reasonable assurance of compliance with relevant permitting criteria. No specific evidence regarding the general health and value of the seagrasses in Back Bay was presented. The seagrasses in Back Bay are not designated as an RPA. There was no evidence presented that there is soft coral or other submerged resources in Back Bay. Therefore, the reduced risk of harm to the seagrasses in Back Bay does not offset the potential harm that the proposed project would cause to the seagrasses and other submerged resources in Charlotte Harbor. Manatees Petitioner agreed to comply with all of the conditions recommended by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission related to the protection of manatees: In order [to] ensure a minimum clearance of 12 inches above the top of seagrass so as to avoid damage located in the project ingress/egress route, the maximum draft, including propeller(s), for vessels associated with slips 1-5 in Charlotte Harbor shall be 30 inches. The Standard Manatee Conditions for In- Water Work (revision 2009) shall be followed for all in-water activity. Handrails shall be constructed and maintained along the access pier and the landward side of the terminal platform to prevent mooring outside of the designated slip areas. The Permittee shall develop and implement a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)-approved marina educational program prior to slip occupancy. The Permittee shall develop this educational program with the assistance of FWC, and FWC shall approve this education plan prior to its implementation. The program may include (at a minimum) the posting of permanent manatee educational signs and the display of brochures in a prominent location. The educational program must be maintained for the life of the facility. The [Permittee] shall install and maintain seagrass marker buoys as depicted in the site plan for the docks in Charlotte Harbor. The buoys must be permitted by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Boating and Waterways Section, and maintained for the life of the project. The [P]ermittee shall provide bins for the disposal of or recycling of monofilament line or other used fishing gear. The [P]ermittee shall also provide educational signs encouraging the use of these bins. Larger boats are generally more lethal in collisions with manatees because there is usually more momentum involved. Greater momentum generally causes deeper propeller cuts and other serious physical injury. Slips 6 through 24 in the Charlotte Harbor marina would accommodate boats of greater size (up to five-foot draft) than would have used the slips that would be eliminated in Back Bay, creating some small, unquantified additional risk of increased injury or death to manatees in Charlotte Harbor and other area waters. Lee County reviewed the proposed project against the Lee County Manatee Protection Plan and scored the project as "Preferred." The factors that the County considered in scoring the project were not explained. The reduction of boat traffic in Back Bay that would result from the eliminating boat slips and removing the boat ramps, and the marking of a channel away from seagrasses in Back Bay, would reduce the current risk to manatees using Back Bay. However, that reduction of risk is offset by the increased risk of injury to manatees associated with the addition of 17 larger slips in the Charlotte Harbor marina, the potential for collisions with any manatees foraging in the seagrass near the Charlotte Harbor marina, and the potential loss of seagrasses from boat impacts and shading. The overall effect of the proposed project on manatees would probably be negative. Water Quality The District and Intervenors contend that the proposed project would cause additional pollution associated with boating activity and, therefore, would violate the water quality standard applicable in Outstanding Florida Waters that ambient water quality cannot be degraded. However, Petitioner would reduce the total number of boats that could operate out of the marinas and would implement a number of prohibitions and other management practices that would reduce the potential for pollution when compared to the current situation. There was no evidence presented to quantify the pollution that might now be occurring as a result of the absence of pump-out facilities at the marinas, or the presence of related pollution in Charlotte Harbor or Back Bay. However, it was undisputed that the availability of pump-out facilities is generally a benefit for water quality. Petitioner has not indicated where the sewage pump-out facilities would be located. Although this is a relatively minor issue, the location of these facilities can affect the potential for pollution and, therefore, it is reasonable for the District to require this information before the ERP can be approved. Although the District and Intervenors contend that insufficient information was presented regarding flushing characteristics in Charlotte Harbor, that contention is inconsistent with their claim that strong winds, waves, and tidal forces that occur in this area of Charlotte Harbor would cause shoaling and scour at the breakwater. There is sufficient evidence that the Charlotte Harbor marina would be well flushed. An issue was also raised about the potential for turbidity problems in Back Bay caused by disturbance of the silty bottom by boats using the Back Bay slips. However, the reduction of the number of boats that would operate out of the Back Bay marina, the marina management proposals, and the channel marking would likely reduce such incidents in Back Bay. As discussed above, some small water quality benefits to Back Bay would be realized by the reef balls and the elimination of the canal. The overall effect of the proposed project would be to reduce the potential water quality impacts associated with the marinas, resulting in some small net improvement to the ambient water quality of the Pine Island Aquatic Preserve. Shoaling and Scour Shoaling is generally the accumulation of unconsolidated sediments that occur because of their movement by hydrodynamic forces of water flow, waves and currents. Scour is a type of erosion that occurs when current forces, when moving around a structure, push sediments away. Petitioner's expert, Hans Wilson, testified that it would take a relatively extreme amount of wave energy to create scour at the bottom of the breakwater. He said that the proposed breakwater was similar to one used at Royal Palm Yacht Club in Charlotte Harbor, which has not caused shoaling or scour. Robert Brantly, of the Department of Environmental Protection, believes that the proposed breakwater could cause shoaling and scour. While not agreeing with Mr. Brantly's concern, Petitioner offered to place reef balls at the base of the breakwater to further dissipate wave energy. Petitioner's evidence on this issue lacked much detail, but the evidence offered by the District was speculation -- Mr. Brantly thought there might be a problem and wanted to see more information. The District failed to rebut Petitioner's prima facie case that the breakwater would not cause shoaling or scour. Public Uses The District and Intervenors contend that the proposed project would reduce access by the general public to the aquatic preserve because the boat ramps would be eliminated and the fishing platform would be smaller than the area now available to the public on the fishing pier. The evidence shows some small reduction in public access to the aquatic preserve would likely result from the proposed project. Fill The District and Intervenors claimed for the first time in their Joint Proposed Recommended Order that the proposed breakwater for the Charlotte Harbor marina is prohibited fill. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.004(1)(c) prohibits "filling waterward of the mean or ordinary high water line." "Fill" is defined in Rule 18-20.003(27): "Fill" means materials from any source, deposited by any means onto sovereignty lands, either for the purpose of creating new uplands or for any other purpose, including the spoiling of dredged materials. For the purpose of this rule, the placement of pilings or riprap shall not be considered to be filling. The District claims that the breakwater is "clearly prohibited" and that no additional factual evidence needs to be presented to determine the issue. However, although it is clear that the rule prohibits the deposition of fill materials such as dirt or sand into the water, it is not clear what other activities are prohibited by the rule.3/ Docks and marinas are clearly allowed by the aquatic preserve rules. Whether the breakwater is a piling structure is not answered by the record evidence. Evidence regarding the practices of the Board of Trustees, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the District in the interpretation and application of the rule is also absent from the record. Therefore, even if the issue had been timely raised by the District and Intervenors, the record evidence is insufficient to prove their claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District deny the ERP and Lease requested by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent Richardson’s application for a wetlands resource permit to construct a private road and bridge through wetlands should be denied for failing to provide mitigation to offset the impacts to existing wetlands. Whether Respondent Richardson had provided the Department with reasonable assurance that he or she owns or has sufficient authorization to use certain land in mitigation to offset the wetland impacts.
Findings Of Fact In January of 1990, John Richardson applied to the Department for a wetland resource (dredge and fill) permit under Section 403.918, Florida Statutes to construct a private road and bridge through wetlands. The proposed project would impact 0.032 acres of wetland. The proposed project is not located in an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The proposed project would adversely affect the following: the conservation of fish and wildlife; the fishing, recreational values, and marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed project; and the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the wetlands impacted by the project. The proposed project would be permanent in nature. The proposed project would not meet the criteria of Section 403.918(2)(a) Florida Statutes, without mitigation adequate to offset the impacts to wetlands. To provide adequate mitigation for the proposed project, Respondent John Richardson proposed to create and preserve 0.029 acres of new wetlands and preserve 4.35 acres of existing wetlands. The preservation would consist of granting to the Department a perpetual conservation easement over the mitigation wetlands. Respondent John Richardson represented to the Department that he was the record owner or had permission to use the land that he offered for mitigation. The Department reasonably relied on that representation. The mitigation proposed by Respondent John Richardson would be adequate to offset the impacts to wetlands resulting from the proposed project. On March 4, 1992, the Department issued to John Richardson a wetlands resource permit for the proposed project. The Department was not aware, before it issued this permit, that John Richardson might not own or have permission to use the mitigation land. The Department was substantially justified in issuing the permit to John Richardson on March 4, 1992. Specific conditions 28-31 of that permit required Respondent John Richardson to grant the Department a conservation easement over the mitigation land within thirty days after issuance of the permit. Respondent John Richardson failed to grant the Department the required conservation easement, and failed to publish notice of the Department’s action. On July 22, 1996, Petitioners filed a timely petition with the Department challenging the Department’s issuance of the March 4, 1992, permit to Respondent John Richardson. On September 11, 1996, Janet Richardson filed an application with the Department for transfer of the March 4, 1992, permit to her following the dissolution of marriage with John Richardson. By letter dated October 11, 1996, the Department requested Janet Richardson to provide additional documentation to show that she either owns the mitigation land or has permission to use that land. Janet Richardson was required to provide a legal survey drawing depicting the mitigation land, property records showing ownership of that land, and a notarized statement from the land owner authorizing her to use that land. The Department specifically advised Janet Richardson that it could not approve the proposed project if she failed to submit this requested documentation to the Department prior to the final hearing. Janet Richardson failed to provide the requested documentation by the date of the final hearing in this matter, or subsequently. As of November 6, 1996, no work had begun on the proposed project. At the hearing, the Department adequately explained its change in position from deciding to issue the permit (on March 4, 1992) and proposing denial of the permit (on November 6, 1996). The Department relies on an applicant’s representations regarding ownership of or right to use land unless a problem is brought to the Department’s attention. In this case, the Department was not aware that there was a problem with the applicant’s right to use the mitigation land until the petition was filed with the Department on July 22, 1996. Janet Richardson failed to provide proof that she either owns or is authorized to use the land to mitigate the impacts to wetlands from the proposed project. Without such proof, Janet Richardson failed to prove that she could mitigate those same impacts from the proposed project.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying Respondent Richardson’s request for a wetlands resource permit for the proposed project.ONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Stauffer Post Office Box 97 Aripeka, Florida 34679-097 Cy Plata Post Office Box 64 Aripeka, Florida 34679 Steven McCallum Post Office Box 484 Aripeka, Florida 34679 Leslie Neumann Post Office Box 738 Aripeka, Florida 34679 John Richardson 700 West Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34607 Janet Richardson 1603 Osowaw Boulevard Springhill, Florida 34607 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr., Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virgina B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
