The Issue The issue is whether Respondent South Florida Water Management District is entitled to an environmental resource permit from Respondent Department of Environmental Protection to construct a weir in Collier County on the Merritt Canal about 3600 feet south of Interstate 75 for the purpose of extending the hydroperiod on the Florida Panther Federal Wildlife Refuge.
Findings Of Fact Proposed Permit On April 17, 1996, Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) filed with Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) an application for the construction of a water-control structure in the Merritt Canal. The stated purpose of the structure, which is a weir, is to extend the hydroperiod of the Lucky Lake Strand. The application states that the District is the owner of a drainage easement covering the land proposed as the site of the weir. According to the application, Collier County, in which the Merritt Canal lies, originally held the drainage easement. The District later adopted the Merritt Canal as a "Works of the District," which transferred operational responsibility for the canal from the County to the District. (A sub-unit of the District, the Big Cypress Basin Board has jurisdiction for District projects of the type involved in this case. References to the District shall include the Big Cypress Basin Board.) The application requests a permit to construct an adjustable sheet-pile weir within the 80-foot Merritt Canal right-of-way. The application accurately describes the Merritt Canal as a Class III waterbody that is not an Outstanding Florida Water. By Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit dated January 29, 1997 (NOI), DEP proposed to issue an environmental resource permit (ERP) to the District for the construction of the Lucky Lake Strand Water Control Structure. The structure would be an adjustable weir with operating levels of 7.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) in the wet season and 9.5 feet NGVD in the dry season. As stated in the NOI, the Merritt Canal is 12 miles long and one of four main north-south canals within a larger system of 183 miles of canals--all Class III waters-- constructed in the 1960s by Gulf American Land Corporation to drain wetlands for development of the Southern Golden Gate Estates area. These four north-south canals drain water south through the Faka Union Canal and into Faka Union Bay, which is part of the 10,000 Islands/Cape Romano Aquatic Preserve. The preserve contains Class II Outstanding Florida Waters. The NOI notes that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and District entered into an agreement in September 1994 to construct two weirs in the Merritt Canal "to partially restore historic hydroperiods into two major wetland features within the federally owned lands of the USFWS Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Lucky Lake Strand and Stumpy Strand (Class III Outstanding Florida Waters)." As stated in the NOI, these federally owned wetlands constitute over 3000 acres of cypress and mixed swamps, wet prairies, marshes, and ponds. The NOI relates that FWS staff proposed the project to counteract "subtle vegetational changes and accelerated pond draw-downs [that] were taking place in the strands as a result of shortened hydroperiods caused by a three-year drought, I-75 widening activities, and subsequent canal modifications." The NOI correctly states that water in the wet season historically flowed southerly through Stumpy Strand, Lucky Lake Strand, and Picayune Strand, before entering the larger Fakahatchee Strand. Lucky Lake Strand narrows to 1000 feet at its south end, which is at Interstate 75 (I-75). The NOI accurately asserts that the construction of the Merritt Canal and the I-75 borrow canals combined to draw down the upstream wetlands, thus reducing their hydroperiods. The effect of the Merritt Canal is reportedly significant because of its confluence with the southern tip of Lucky Lake Strand. The NOI discloses that the original agreement between the District and FWS called for the construction of two weirs south of I-75, one at the headwaters of the Merritt Canal and another about 1800 feet downstream in the Merritt Canal. However, the proposed permit eliminates one weir, whose function was performed by plugs in the north I-75 borrow canal, and relocates the remaining proposed weir about 3600 feet south of I-75, rather than immediately south of I-75, reportedly because of difficulties in accessing the proposed weir at I-75. The NOI states that the Merritt Canal is within the 80-foot drainage easement originally acquired by Collier County. The uplands adjacent to the weir are reportedly owned by DEP. The NOI describes the proposed weir as a sheet pile weir with adjustable partitions. As proposed, during the wet season, the District would start to open the gates at 7 feet NGVD and start to close them at 6.5 feet NGVD. During the dry season, the District would start to open the gates at 9.8 feet NGVD and start to close them at 9.3 feet NGVD. Also, the proposed permit would anticipate that the District would dredge the canal to a trapezoidal cross-section having a bottom elevation of -1.5 feet NGVD and a width of about 49 feet at the weir and transitioning to 20-foot bottom widths upstream and downstream of the weir. According to the NOI, the purpose of the proposed weir is to reduce over-drainage of the upstream wetlands in Lucky Lake and Stumpy Strands by extending the hydroperiod further into the dry season. No increase in water levels during the wet season is expected. Although the historic extended hydroperiod is not expected to be achieved, the weir structure is expected to improve current conditions to the upstream wetlands. Holding back water in these wetlands [is] also expected to improve water quality downstream by removal of excess nutrient, sediments, and chemicals. Wildlife values are expected to be enhanced in preferred waterfowl and wading bird habitat, including areas for the endangered wood stork and threatened bald eagle. Forage areas are also expected to be improved for white-tailed deer and other wildlife species which are essential prey for the endangered Florida panther. Aquifer recharge is also expected as the ground water reserves will be raised by raising the canal water levels, while maintaining the existing level of flood protection for adjacent private landowners. The NOI states that FWS will monitor post- construction environmental conditions and will recommend to the District adjustments to the weir elevations. The NOI reports that the District will be the "main operator" of the weir to adjust elevations to maintain flood control for adjacent lands. The NOI adds: The project was designed so as not to decrease the peak discharge capacity in the canal or increase flood stages in the Upper Merritt Canal watershed. Hydraulic modeling by the District indicates that there will be no additional surface water flooding to private property as a result of the project, and the current level of service will be maintained. Based on this analysis, the NOI concludes that the District has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will comply with Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the underlying rules, including Chapter 62-330 and Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, Florida Administrative Code. The NOI states that the District has demonstrated that the activity is clearly in the public interest, pursuant to Section 373.414(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The proposed permit conforms to the NOI's description. Specific Condition 13 sets the fixed crest of the proposed weir at 4.5 feet NGVD and the width of the weir at 48 feet. Although the proposed permit is nowhere explicitly conditioned on a successful wetland enhancement project, Specific Condition 12 states that "the" wetland enhancement project shall be considered successful if, after five years, Lucky Lake Strand and Stumpy Strand display wetland- appropriate vegetation and the "viability of adjacent upland sites [is] not negatively impacted by increased ground water or surface water levels resulting from the authorized project." Specific Condition 17 requires the District to document the operation of the gates and notify DEP, within three days, whenever any of the permitted elevations are exceeded. Annually, the District must supply DEP detailed data and analysis of the operational history of the weir, including "reasons for going to nonstandard operation and a narrative description of the effectiveness of initiating the nonstandard operation to include areas not flooded (or flooded, if applicable) and other associated impacts." During the final hearing, the District proposed, and DEP approved, a modification of Specific Condition 18. As modified, Specific Condition 18 requires the District to "monitor the effects of the operation" of the weir, pursuant to the revised monitoring plan incorporated by reference into this condition. The revised monitoring plan, which is dated November 12, 1997, alters the original monitoring plan by adding two sites for the installation of water-table wells. One of the new sites (Site A) is 1200 feet north of the weir, and the other new site (Site B) is 1200 feet north and 2000 feet west of the weir. These are the only water-table monitoring devices. Five other sites are surface-water monitoring sites. Three of the these sites are in the Merritt Canal: one immediately upstream of the weir, one immediately downstream of the weir, and one farther upstream at I-75. The other two surface-water monitoring sites are farther upstream. One is in Lucky Lake about 1.75 miles north of the weir, and the other is about three miles northeast of Lucky Lake. Three other sites are rainfall-monitoring sites. Two rainfall-monitoring sites are north of the weir. The site just north of I-75 is at the Ford Motor Company test track, which is immediately west of Lucky Lake and Stumpy Strands, and the site more directly north of the Merritt Canal is about ten miles north of I-75. Specific Condition 18 states the frequency with which someone (presumably a District employee or contractor) is to collect the data from these 10 monitoring sites, but contains no performance criteria. The monitoring plan thus commits the District to collecting data, but not to analyzing the data, nor, more importantly, taking specified actions when certain performance parameters are exceeded. Neither the revised monitoring plan nor the application in any way commits the District to using the data collected from the revised monitoring plan to develop a set of criteria, based on rainfall amounts, groundwater levels, and surface water levels, to fine-tune the operation of the gates so as not to exacerbate present flooding. Nothing in the revised monitoring plan or the application suggests that the District will use the data collected from the revised monitoring plan to identify more clearly the relationships between storm events and water levels to understand better the relationship between flooding, on the one hand, and the existence of the proposed weir and the operation of its gates. Faka Union Canal Watershed and Southern Golden Gate Estates What is now known as the Faka Union Canal Watershed historically covered about 234 square miles. It ran from an area about four miles north of what is now known as Immokalee Road south in a widening expanse that approached 12 miles at what is now U.S. Route 41. It then ran south until it emptied into the Gulf of Mexico at Faka Union Bay in what is now the Cape Romano Ten Thousand Islands State Aquatic Preserve east of Marco Island. Land alterations due to road and canal construction and urban and agricultural development eventually reduced the Faka Union Canal Watershed to about 189 square miles. Most noticeably, these changes narrowed the drainage area at U. S. Route 41 from almost 12 miles to little more than the width of the Faka Union Canal. The Faka Union Canal Watershed is characterized by low relief and poorly defined drainage patterns. At the north boundary of the watershed, which now ends at Immokalee Road, the elevation reaches 24 feet NGVD. Twenty-eight miles to the south, at the outlet of the basin, the elevation is two feet NGVD. The water flows generally in a southwest direction. Historically, water ran slowly through the watershed in sheetflow several miles wide and a few inches to a few feet deep. Drainage concentrated in slightly lower sloughs and strands, which generally dried out in the dry season. Historically, the watershed featured flat, swampy lands containing cypress trees, islands of pine forests, and wet and dry prairies. Prior to development, much of the watershed remained inundated by several feet of water during the five- month wet season (roughly from mid-May through mid-October). In this undisturbed state, the prominent features of the watershed were the storage of runoff in depressional areas, attenuated peak flows, and a longer hydroperiod into the dry season. In the early 1960s, Gulf American Land Corporation subdivided a 173 square-mile area in Collier County into many thousands of lots as small as 1.25 acres. The development was Golden Gate Estates. The portion of Golden Gate Estates south of I-75 is known as Southern Golden Gate Estates. Golden Gate Estates is west of the Merritt Canal. Gulf American's purpose in dredging the 183-mile canal system was to allow it to market as land, available for continuous occupation, subdivided lots superimposed over an area that was land during the dry months and water during the wet months. To achieve this objective, Gulf American Land Corporation constructed one group of canals that drains to the west and another group of canals drains to the south into the Faka Union Canal. Gulf American dredged the canals draining to the south, which form the Faka Union Canal System, from 1968 through 1971. Four north-south canals spaced two miles apart drain Southern Golden Gate Estates and the portion of the Faka Union Canal Watershed north of I-75. From west to east, the canals are the Miller Canal, Faka Union Canal, Merritt Canal, and Prairie Canal. Only the two westerly canals run north of I-75. The Miller Canal extends almost seven miles north of I-75, and the Faka Union Canal extends about 14 miles north of I-75. The Merritt Canal starts in the immediate vicinity of I-75, and the Prairie Canal starts about two miles south of I-75. The average excavated depth of the four canals is about ten feet from the top of the bank to the bottom of the channel. Given the relatively close proximity of the water table to the surface in this area, excavation to these depths thus established a direct hydraulic connection with the surficial aquifer. The canals are large, ranging from 45 to over 200 feet wide. Although unable to convey without flooding the water from even a ten-year storm event, which is the level of service standard set by Collier County for Southern Golden Gate Estates, the Faka Union Canal system has nonetheless severely impacted the water resources of Collier County. According to the Hydrologic Restoration of Southern Golden Gate Estates, prepared in February 1996 by the Big Cypress Basin Board (Southern Golden Gate Estates Restoration Plan): . . . Construction of the canals has led to both increased volumes and rates of runoff from the watershed which has had lasting effects on the area's water supply, vegetation, wildlife, and coastal estuaries. The canals intercept large volumes of surface and subsurface flow and quickly divert them to the Faka Union Bay and the Ten Thousand Island Estuary of the Gulf of Mexico resulting in less surface water available for storage. Since groundwater recharge is achieved primarily through infiltration from surface detention storage, reduced groundwater recharge threatens both groundwater supply for the region and the natural barrier to salt water intrusion. Continued overdrainage has caused an eventual lowering of the groundwater table. This has caused vegetation to change from wetland dominant to transitional and upland systems with invasive exotic species. The extreme dry conditions caused by overdrainage have resulted in more frequent and more intense wildfires with a greater destructive impact on vegetation. The increased runoff rate has had severe effects on the receiving estuaries. Historically, the estuaries would receive broad, slow moving sheets of water that were capable of carrying essential nutrients but not high sediment loads. This has been replaced with point loads of freshwater at the Faka Union Canal outlet that push salinity levels down and result in freshwater discharge shocks throughout the Ten Thousand Island Estuary. The increased runoff rate drains the area quickly and does not allow the hydroperiods necessary to sustain wetland vegetation. . . . Southern Golden Gate Estates Restoration Plan, pages 8-9. The major roadway affecting the Faka Union Canal Watershed is State Road 84, which was a two-lane road constructed in 1966. In 1990, construction was completed transforming State Road 84 into four-lane I-75. These road projects have hastened drainage of the lands to the north of I-75 and east of the Faka Union Canal. The land north of the Merritt Canal is largely undeveloped. If one were to extend the Merritt Canal due north of I-75, it would run through the middle of Lucky Lake Strand and much of Stumpy Strand, which is immediately to the north of Lucky Lake Strand. Agricultural land owned by Collier Enterprises is just north of the Ford Motor Company test track and immediately west of Lucky Lake Strand. Agricultural land owned by Baron Collier Company is immediately north of Stumpy Strand. This imaginary extension of Merritt Canal would mark the west boundary of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in June 1989. The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge constitutes 26,000 relatively undisturbed acres immediately north of I-75. Intervenor Clifford Fort owns property south of the refuge on the south side of I-75. The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge features mostly wetlands, oak hammocks, pine flatwoods, and prairies. The refuge receives runoff from stormwater and possibly agricultural pumping of the water table from the adjacent farmland. In addition to draining into the headwaters of the Merritt Canal near the southwest corner of the refuge, the refuge also drains into the northerly borrow canal running along the north side of I-75. In the vicinity of the Merritt Canal, the four borrow canals running along the north and south sides of I-75, on both sides of the Merritt Canal, drain in the direction of the Merritt Canal. Listed species using the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge include the Florida panther, Florida black bear, wood stork, roseate spoonbill, limpkin, and Eastern Indigo snake. In October 1995, an inordinate amount of rain fell in the area. Attracted by the increased water depths, which more closely approximated historic conditions, 75 wood storks nested in the Lucky Lake Strand; in drier years, wood storks do not nest in the strand. Lucky Lake Strand occupies the southwest corner of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. Lucky Lake and two other ponds are present in this area. When full, Lucky Lake and one of the ponds are about 50 meters wide, and the third pond is about half of this width. During the dry season, a person can throw a stone across any of the ponds. Historically, Lucky Lake and Stumpy strands passed surface water into the Picayune Strand, which is west of the Merritt Canal and south of I-75, from which the water ran into the Fakahatchee Strand. Lucky Lake Strand presently narrows to about 1000 feet at I-75. The hydrologic connection between the outlet of Lucky Lake Strand and the headwaters of the Merritt Canal has contributed significantly to the overdrainage of these two strands, which occupy a significant area within the federal refuge. The FWS wildlife biologist stationed at the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge reported in a habitat assessment report prepared in August 1996 that four ponds in the strand dried out by December so that they could not sustain fish or provide feeding habitat for birds. Permitting Criteria Public Health, Safety, or Welfare or Others' Property One of the main disputes between the parties is the affect of the proposed weir on flooding. This case is largely about flooding or, more generally, the amount of water to be stored for a specified period of time. Petitioners and Intervenors fear that the District's effort will cause flooding to areas south of I-75 and east and west of the Merritt Canal. Occupying property within a vast area whose natural drainage patterns have been greatly disrupted, Petitioners and Intervenors justifiably fear the ravages of flood and fire. Although this area was undoubtedly subject to these hazards prior to man's alteration of the natural landscape, large- scale alterations to natural drainage in Southwest Florida have artificially heightened the risk presented by these natural hazards. Destructive flooding follows the inhabitation of areas historically devoted to the storage of considerable volumes of water; the flooding is exacerbated where, as here, natural drainage features have been replaced by artificial facilities that are inadequate for both the natural flows and the new, artificial flows generated by development. Although inadequate for the natural and artificial flows generated by even design storm events, the artificial drainage facilities nevertheless change historic drainage rates, accelerating the rate and volume of natural drainage and shortening the hydroperiod. In this manner, the artificial drainage facilities contribute to the desiccation of previously saturated soils and foster conditions suitable for dangerous fires. Initially, Petitioners and Intervenors contend that the District seeks approval of the proposed weir as an indirect means of implementing the Southern Golden Gate Estates Rehydration Plan. Little evidence supports this concern. The Southern Golden Gate Estates Rehydration Plan outlines several alternatives for the proposed rehydration of Southern Golden Gate Estates. The preferred alternative does not call for a weir at the proposed location. The purpose of the proposed weir is to rehydrate an area north of the Southern Golden Gate Estates. As discussed below, the role of the proposed weir in rehydrating Southern Golden Gate Estates appears insubstantial to the point of nonexistent. Focusing on the location of the proposed weir over half of a mile downstream from the southernmost part of the area intended to be rehydrated, Petitioners and Intervenors dispute the stated purpose of the project, focusing on the District's earlier relocation of the proposed weir from positions just north and then just south of I-75 to its present position a half-mile farther to the south. The District did nothing to allay this concern of Petitioners and Intervenors when its employees could not provide a reasonably detailed explanation of the process by which someone moved the proposed site to the south. From the District's evidence, one would infer that the decision to relocate the proposed weir to the south spontaneously emerged, without human sponsor, in the course of bureaucratic decisionmaking. The District asserted that the northerly sites were impractical due to access problems. However, the District made little, if any, real effort to see if the Department of Transportation would allow access to these more northerly sites--one of which the District might be able to access without the consent of the Department of Transportation. The record does not reveal why the District relocated the proposed weir to its present location, considerably south of its initial two locations at I-75. Again, though, the evidence does not support the contention of Petitioners and Intervenors that the relocation decision was part of a private plan among District employees to incorporate the proposed weir as part of a more ambitious project to rehydrate Southern Golden Gate Estates. Nor does the evidence establish, as Petitioners and Intervenors contend, that the relocation decision was driven by the concerns of three influential landholders to the north of I-75--Collier Enterprises, Barron Collier Company, and Ford Motor Company. These three landholders approved the proposed weir in its present location over a half-mile to the south of its original locations and may have expressed concern that the original locations at I-75 would unreasonably raise the risk of flooding their land and business and agricultural activities to the north of I-75. If the District's real reason for relocating the proposed weir was due to objections from these landowners to the north of I-75, this reason would not itself help Petitioners and Intervenors. If the District acceded to the demands of these landowners to the north, it does not necessarily follow that the District lacked confidence in its flood calculations. A relocation decision under these circumstances would have as likely reflected political, as scientific, concerns. Additionally, if the District moved the proposed weir at the insistence or suggestion of the landowners to the north, any flooding concerns voiced by these landowners raise different issues from the flooding concerns raised by Petitioners and Intervenors. Owners of land immediately to the north and west of the federal refuge are more directly within the area of the intended effects than are Petitioners and Intervenors. More substantially, Petitioners and Intervenors claim that the proposed activity is so negligently designed or will be so negligently operated as to result in heightened and more frequent flooding of areas to the west and east of the proposed weir. The District's record in operating weirs in Collier County is not flawless. In recent years, the District constructed and maintained a weir with unlawfully high gates and did not correct the noncompliant water-control structure for several months after first learning of the violation. However, this appears to have been an isolated violation. The division of responsibility between the District and Collier County for the maintenance of drainage canals is based on whether the canal is a primary or secondary drainage facility. The District has assumed responsibility for all of the primary drainage facilities in Collier County. Surprisingly, though, the record reveals no master map or index of the primary drainage facilities and at least the larger nonprimary drainage facilities. However, Petitioners and Intervenors failed to show that any confusion concerning maintenance responsibilities that may exist between the District and Collier County would appreciably raise the probabilities that the District would operate the proposed weir in such a way as to exacerbate present flooding concerns. The District and Collier County agree that the District has jurisdiction over the Merritt Canal. Petitioners and Intervenors have also failed to show that any confusion concerning secondary-drainage contributions that may exist between the District and Collier County would have a substantial impact on the successful operation of the proposed weir. The most significant claim raised by Petitioners and Intervenors asserts that the District failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed weir would not exacerbate flooding. Although the weir gates would be closed only during the dry season, the proposed activity requires analysis of the risk of heightened water elevations upstream of the proposed weir. In theory, flooding could result from the effects of the weir even when the gates are open, as well as the possibility of an extreme storm event during the dry season. Expert witnesses on both sides clashed over whether the design of the proposed weir was sufficient not to exacerbate existing levels, rates, and frequencies of flooding of adjacent uplands. The crucial feature over which the experts disagreed was the spoil banks running along the canal. When the Merritt Canal was constructed, the spoil was dumped along the banks. In the ensuing years, vegetation colonized and stabilized the spoil banks, which now function as levees. The expert witness called by Petitioners and Intervenors disregarded the spoil banks in his calculations. His lack of confidence in the opposing expert witness's use of top-of-bank elevations was partly justified for the reasons stated below. Although a minor point, part of the argument of Petitioners and Intervenors' expert witness proved too much by asserting that levees cannot maintain water levels higher inside the levee than the existing ground elevation outside the levee. On the other hand, in showing that the proposed weir would not exacerbate flooding, the District's expert witness relied, not entirely justifiably, on the top-of-bank elevations. The District took only spot elevations of the spoil bank and then assumed that these elevations prevailed along the entire 3600 feet of canal upstream of the weir. The District did not inspect the upstream banks for unpermitted culverts, of which at least one was discovered during the lengthy hearing in this case. There is a possibility of material differences in elevations along the spoil banks. These spoil banks were not constructed to a specified elevation; they were an excavation byproduct that was haphazardly deposited beside the excavated canal. Additionally, the record suggests that this general area has been the site of unpermitted works, such as the installation of a culvert and creation of unpermitted canal plugs. In the months over which the hearing took place, Petitioners and Intervenors alertly found a culvert breaching the spoil bank upstream of the proposed weir. At least one of their representatives demonstrated superior familiarity with the spoil bank over the familiarity demonstrated by the District's representatives. It is a fair inference that, if the spoil bank was substantially missing at any point upstream of the proposed weir, Petitioners and Intervenors would have brought such evidence to the hearing. The absence of such evidence, coupled with the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the concededly more cursory investigation of the site by the District, precludes a finding that the spoil bank is substantially missing at any material point so as to warrant the use of ground elevations, as used by the expert witness called by Petitioners and Intervenors. At best, from the perspective of Petitioners and Intervenors, the record supports the finding that the spoil banks may not be as continuously as high as the District posits, but they are not nearly as low (i.e., nonexistent) at any point as Petitioners and Intervenors contend. The two experts also disagreed over two subordinate inputs used in running the flood calculations. The expert called by Petitioners and Intervenors claimed that initial tailwaters (i.e., water elevations downstream of the weir) in excess of 8.53 feet were appropriate. Although the canal has experienced historically higher tailwaters than 8.53 feet, the expert did not explain adequately why such higher tailwaters should be used in running the model, especially since flood calculations are not used to predict flooding conditions in all storms, such as a 1000-year storm. Absent a showing that tailwater in excess of 8.53 feet would be present at the relevant time preceding or during the design storm event, the expert called by Petitioners and Intervenors failed to show why the District's tailwater input was unreasonable. On the other hand, the District's expert claimed that the model required an adjustment to the friction factor or Manning's N coefficient. This adjustment, which decreased the friction factor by an order of magnitude, approximated a bottom that was many times smoother than the actual bottom of the Merritt Canal. The District's expert did not explain adequately why the lower friction factor should be used in running the model, and he frankly did not demonstrate the same familiarity with this friction factor as did the expert called by Petitioners and Intervenors. The most likely inference is that the District's expert erred in making this adjustment. There was another controversy between the parties regarding a subordinate input for the flooding calculations. Petitioners and Intervenors raised the possibility that agricultural discharges from the Collier properties adjacent to the federal refuge, which the District ignored in its calculations, might further undermine any assurances as to flooding. This could have been useful information if developed in the record, but the record permits no basis to quantify the value of this additional discharge or ascertain its timing relative to wet and dry seasons and storm events, if in fact this agricultural discharge takes place at all. Also, offsetting any such discharge would be two factors: the District ran its calculations assuming a runoff rate 25 percent greater than that appropriately used by the Florida Department of Transportation for modeling the design storm event, and the District ignored the plugs in the I-75 borrow canals, which attenuate the runoff into the Merritt Canal. Although Petitioners and Intervenors incorrectly inputted ground elevation in place of the top-of-bank elevation--when the best elevation is somewhere in between these two values--their expert's calculations are useful for illustrating a scenario that, for this reason, exceeds the worst-case scenario. Again, this is an illustration of a scenario that predicts greater flooding than reasonably should be predicted because, in actuality, the restraining elevation is higher than ground elevation. Using the 8.53-feet initial value for tailwater, Petitioners' Exhibit 27 illustrates the different water elevations resulting from running the model with and without the excessive reduction of the friction factor. Petitioners Exhibit 27 illustrates the effect of the design storm on upstream water elevations with the gates open. Petitioners Exhibit 27 ignores the spoil banks and instead uses prevailing ground elevations. At the site of the proposed weir, the canal bottom is at about -1.5 feet NGVD. The proposed weir would add fixed barriers up to an elevation of 5.0 feet NGVD; the adjustable gates would, when closed, extend the barrier from 5.0 feet NGVD to 9.5 feet NGVD. Approximate existing ground elevation averages about 10 feet NGVD downstream of I-75, with one dip to below 9 feet NGVD about 600 feet downstream of I-75. For about 6000 feet upstream of I-75, where there is no spoil bank whatsoever, the average ground elevation, outside of the slough, is about 13 feet. The slough bottom in this area gently slopes from about 9 feet NGVD to 10 feet NGVD. Ignoring the spoil bank, Petitioners Exhibit 27 predicts flooding in two major areas in the design storm event, even with the gates open. One of these is about 300 feet long, starting about 400 feet downstream of I-75. The other is at least 300 feet long, starting near the northern extreme of the modeled area and running off the modeled area. The District did not survey in detail the spoil bank along the 300 feet downstream of I-75. There is no spoil bank upstream of I-75 because there is no dredged canal. The water elevation about 400 feet downstream of I-75 would be almost one foot greater than the ground elevation. The water elevation about 6000 feet upstream of I-75 will be as much as half of a foot greater than the ground elevation. At the more downstream point, the actual water elevation would exceed the District's projection by nearly three-quarter of one foot. At the more upstream point, the actual water elevation would exceed the District's projection by over 1.5 feet. Although the record could have been better developed on this important point, there is reasonable assurance that the existing spoil-bank elevations are sufficient to contain these flood elevations predicted by the expert called by Petitioners and Intervenors. Petitioners and Intervenors claimed that the District could achieve its stated purpose of extending the hydroperiod in the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge without increasing the risk or extent of flooding of adjacent uplands. Petitioners and Intervenors suggested that the District repair an existing plug in the Merritt Canal just south of I-75. (This "plug" is actually the original ground surface, which evidently was undisturbed during the construction of I-75. Given the excavation of canals on both sides of what is now a narrow strip of earth, the land resembles a plug, and this recommended order refers to it as a plug, although this term is descriptive only of the feature's present appearance, not its method of creation.) There are actually six plugs--again, in the broad sense of the word--in the vicinity of the junction of the Merritt Canal and I-75. Two plugs interrupt the flow into the Merritt Canal of the borrow canals to the north of I-75. Two plugs likewise interrupt the flow into the Merritt Canal of the borrow canals to the south of I-75. The last two plugs are in the Merritt Canal, a few feet north and south of I-75. Repairing the plug immediately south of I-75 would raise the water elevation by about 1.3 feet under the I-75 bridge. By about 2000 feet upstream of I-75, there is no significant difference between the water elevation using the model of Petitioners and Intervenors' expert for the proposed weir 3600 feet downstream of I-75 and the water elevation for the proposed plug repair just south of I-75. Repairing the plugs would have reduced the water elevation downstream of I- 75 by less than one half of a foot. Petitioners, Intervenors, and their expert have proposed a promising alternative to the proposed weir. The alternative appears to serve the stated purpose of the proposed activity at least as well as the proposed weir would, if not somewhat better due to its closer proximity to the targeted federal refuge, and the alternative project would cost much less to construct, maintain, and operate. The restorative nature of the work would probably relieve the District of the necessity of obtaining a permit. Perhaps the prospect of such work might motivate other state and federal agencies to grant the District access to the area at I-75 to build the weir at one of its first two locations. However, the issue is whether the District has provided reasonable assurance for the activity that it has proposed. As to flooding, the District has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not exacerbate flooding during the design storm events or even more severe storm events. Even assuming an absence of reasonable assurance as to flooding, the first criterion requires consideration of whether the proposed activity would adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or the property of others. Extending the hydroperiod of the federal refuge protects the property of others by reducing the period of time that the turf is dried out. This provides a wide range of environmental protection, including protection against the risk of fire caused by excessive drainage, for the federal refuge and other property in the area. Retarding the artificially high rate of drainage will improve water quality in at least two respects. The proposed weir will retard and reduce the nutrients conveyed down the canal and into the estuary into which it eventually empties. The proposed weir will also tend to restore somewhat the rate and timing of historic freshwater inputs on which the viability of the estuary and its inhabitants depends. Concerns about public health, safety, and welfare, as well as the property of others, cannot be severed from these broadscale environmental benefits to be derived from the proposed activity. Public health concerns are tied to these considerations. Thus, even if the District had failed to provide reasonable assurance as to flooding alone, the District has provided reasonable assurance that, on balance, the proposed weir will not adversely affect the matters set forth in the first criterion. Conservation of Fish and Wildlife, Including Endangered or Threatened Species, or Their Habitats The proposed weir will serve the conservation of a wide range of flora and fauna, as well as their wetlands habitat, within the targeted federal refuge. These species include listed species. The evidence does not support a finding that extending the hydroperiod of the federal refuge would in any way disturb the Florida panther. Navigation, Flow of Water, or Harmful Erosion or Shoaling The proposed weir will have not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water within the canal, and it will not cause erosion or shoaling. Fishing or Recreational Values or Marine Productivity in the Vicinity of the Activity The proposed weir will not adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed weir. To the contrary, the proposed weir will enhance these values in the immediate vicinity of the proposed weir and downstream at the estuary at the mouth of the Merritt Canal. Temporary or Permanent Nature The proposed weir will be of a permanent nature. Significant Historic and Archaeological Resources The record provides no basis for a finding that the proposed weir jeopardizes significant historic and archaeological resources. Current Condition and Relative Value of Functions of Areas Affected by the Proposed Activity The federal refuge is functioning well environmentally, despite the adverse impact of dramatic disruptions of the natural drainage regime. The value of these functions is high. Likewise, the receiving estuarine waters are functioning well, despite the adverse impact of dramatic disruptions of the natural drainage regime. Extending the hydroperiod of the federal refuge will partially offset these historic disruptions. Thus, the proposed weir will assist in the functioning of natural systems that are now functioning well, but could use some help. Public Interest The proposed weir is not in an Outstanding Florida Water. Thus, the question is whether the proposed activity is not contrary to the public interest. The District has provided reasonable assurances as to the preceding seven criteria sufficient to demonstrate that, on balance, the proposed activity is not contrary to the public interest. Cumulative Impacts There is no evidence that the proposed weir will cause any adverse cumulative impacts upon wetlands or surface waters. Other Criteria The District has proved that the proposed weir would not violate any water quality standards. To the contrary, any effect from the proposed activity would be to improve water quality, especially downstream at the estuary. The restoration of conditions more typical of historic drainage would allow more nutrients to be captured upstream and would tend to restore the historic timing and volume of freshwater inputs into the estuary. For the reasons set forth above, the District has also provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activity meets the 11 criteria contained in Rule 40E-4.301, which largely duplicate the seven criteria discussed above, and the relevant provisions of the Basis of Review. It is true that the monitoring provisions are largely illusory because they provide no quantifiable parameter beyond which the District must take specified action. In other words, at best, the monitoring provisions assure that the District will collect post-operational flooding data, but they do not promise that the District will take any action if certain levels of flooding take place. However, the monitoring provisions are of little importance given the factual findings concerning flooding, as discussed above, and the legal requirements of the Basis of Review, as discussed below.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the permit for the construction of the proposed weir about 3600 feet south of I-75 in the Merritt Canal. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: James W. McDonald, Jr., Esquire McDonald & Associates Community Plaza, Suite 306 15600 Southwest 288th Street Homestead, Florida 33030 A. Glenn Simpson Qualified Representative 5961 22nd Avenue Southwest Naples, Florida 34116 Marcy I. LaHart Associate Attorney South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Francine M. Ffolkes Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Walter R. Shaw, Sr., pro se 1400 Northwest 62nd Avenue Sunrise, Florida 33313-6138 Cliffort L. Fort 8410 Northwest 16th Street Pembroke Pines, Florida 33024 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, (Board), was the Pinellas County agency responsible for the certification and regulation of construction specialties. Respondent was certified by the Board as an irrigation systems specialty contractor under license C-5997 in force at the time. Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Sun City Lawn Irrigation. On or about May 17, 1994, Respondent contracted with William J. Schneider, who resided at 5661 25th Avenue North in St. Petersburg, to install a lawn irrigation system in Mr. Schneider's front lawn. The automatic system was to incorporate 2 zones and was, according to the contract and the testimony of Mr. Schneider, to be connected to Schneider's then existing 1/2 horsepower electric pump which drew water from several wells on his property. Mr. Schneider claims there are four wells. No evidence was introduced to contradict that. On the day the system was installed, Mr. Schneider was not at home. Respondent's employees performed a test of the water capacity on Mr. Schneider's property. At first, the wells produced 10 gpm, which was adequate for the system, but after a few minutes of drawdown, they found that the wells were producing only 4 gpm, along with some air. At that time Mr. Freestone, Respondent's sales manager, spoke with Mrs. Schneider about the situation, advising her there were two options open. One was to install a larger pump and the second was to connect the system to the city water supply. Mrs. Schneider returned to the house, presumably to call Mr. Schneider to get his decision on the matter. He claims she did not reach him. Respondent claims that she thereafter returned with directions to install a water line for connection to the city system. This is completely contrary to what Mr. Schneider had wanted and to what is included in the contract. Mr. Schneider claims he did not want to connect to city water because of the added expense of doing so, and he claims he made this very clear to Respondent's employees at the beginning and at all times thereafter. In any case, the system was installed and was, somehow, connected to the city water system near the place where the water line enters the house. In addition, no backflow preventer was installed to insure against contamination getting into the water system as is required by the building code. Most, if not all, the work on this project was completed by Respondent's son and employee, Scott, who was not present at the hearing. Respondent attempted to introduce an unsworn written statement by Scott Bosworth, but it was not accepted. Scott advised Mr. Schneider, when he returned from work that day, that they had been unable to use his pump and wells. Nonetheless, Mr. Schneider paid Respondent in full for the work for which he had contracted, except for a supplemental charge in the amount of $190.95 for the tie in to the city water and the valves and other items connected therewith. Mr. Schneider claims that he made several calls to Respondent's office in an effort to correct the situation but was unable to reach anyone who could give him satisfaction. However, the evidence indicates that on at least one occasion, Mr. Schneider got through and was called back by Mr. Freestone with whom he discussed the situation and the additional charges. He was subsequently advised by counsel that he did not have to pay the additional sum and did not do so. Some time thereafter, Mr. Schneider was advised by the city that he would be fined because of the illegal installation. He then contacted another irrigation company, run by Mr. Williams, who examined the system and determined that the irrigation system installed by Respondent had been connected to the city water system and that no backflow preventer had been installed. A check with the city's building department revealed that no permit had been procured for this installation. Respondent's license to install irrigation systems does not include authority to connect that system with the public water system. That procedure must be done by a licensed plumber. Respondent and Mr. Freestone, the only individuals in the company who had the authority to arrange with a plumber to make the actual hook up to the city system, both deny that any arrangement was made by them to have the system connected to the city water system. Mr. Schneider arrived home on the day in question to find only Respondent's son, Scott, at work on the project. Scott indicated it would be necessary to move two bushes near the house to facilitate connection of the system with the water supply. Mr. Schneider contracted with Scott to move the bushes and remove them from the premises. Scott moved them but failed to remove them. In light of the fact that Scott was working on the system at the time Mr. Schneider arrived home, and the system was found to be connected to the city system thereafter without anyone else touching it, it must be concluded that the connection was made him. Respondent admits he did not come to the property in question while the system was being installed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Board suspending the license of the Respondent for a period of six months with provision for withholding execution of the suspension for a period of one year conditioned upon such criteria as may be deemed appropriate by the Board. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Larry J. Bosworth 8901 14th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33716
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(c) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. FINAL ORDER NO. DCA09-GM-231 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned designated Agency Clerk, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this ay of June, 2009. U.S. Mail: The Honorable Bram D. E. Canter Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Robert Quintin Williams Williams, Smith & Summers 380 West Alfred Street Tavares, Florida 32778-3206 Hand Delivery Matthew Davis, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Agency Clerk LOB ge Viren Ford
Findings Of Fact Ed Smith is the President of Riverside Village Mobile Home Park, Inc., which in turn is the owner of the mobile home park in question in this case. The mobile home park is located in Ruskin, Hillsborough County, Florida. Petitioner was served with an Administrative Complaint alleging that the chlorine residual in the park water supply distribution system was inadequate and that this constituted a violation of Chapter 513 and Section 386.041(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as well as Rule 10D-26.67(1), Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the Administrative Complaint alleges violations occurring between July 16, 1986 and July 29, 1986, and seeks the imposition of a civil penalty in the amount of $500 per day which "shall be calculated when this complaint is received by the (Petitioner), and will run until the violation has been corrected." Petitioner requested a hearing to contest these allegations, and his request was filed with Respondent's Clerk on October 8, 1986. It was not established by competent substantial evidence when Petitioner "received" the Administrative Complaint which is the subject of this action. The only evidence of any violation occurring between July 16 and July 29, 1986 was the testimony of Harry Messick who signed an Official Notice and Notice of Intended Action which were both dated July 16, 1986, and which alleged that "chlorine reading found at time of inspection (was) between 0.1 ppm and (a) trace." However, Messick did not perform any test to either produce or confirm this result. He testified that someone else performed the field test, but there was no testimony from anyone else who may have actually conducted a test on Petitioner's water supply system on July 16, 1986. Therefore, it has not been established by competent substantial evidence that Petitioner's water supply system on July 16, 1986, was in violation of the requirement that .2 mg/1 of free chlorine residual be maintained. Testimony from Respondent's other witnesses, Norman Vik and Neil R. Schobert, indicates Vik was not even at Petitioner's mobile home park between July 16 and 29, 1986, and the only test conducted by Schobert found that Petitioner's water supply system was in compliance on July 24, 1986. Design modifications in Petitioner's water supply distribution system were approved by the Hillsborough County Health Department on July 9, 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order DISMISSING the Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February 1987. APPENDIX (DOAH Case No. 86-4094) Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3. Rejected in Findings of Fact 4, 5. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Sheehan, Esquire Florida Federal Building One Fourth Street North Suite 800 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Carol M. Dittmar, Esquire 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Suite 520 Tampa, Florida 33614 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Michael Chbat's 2008 application for a Wetland Resource Permit (WRP) to construct a culvert extension across his property in Walton County, Florida, should be approved?
Findings Of Fact La Grange Bayou Estates La Grange Bayou Estates is a residential subdivision in Freeport, Walton County, Florida. The subdivision lies to the north of the shoreline of Choctawhatchee Bay. It can be viewed as divided roughly in half between bayfront lots south of an east-west road that transects the subdivision and lots that are north of the road. The subdivision is platted and the plat is in the public records of Walton County. Filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Walton County, Florida, on September 15, 1982, the plat ("the 1982 Plat") shows 29 residential lots in the subdivision as of that date. See Petitioner's Ex. 6. Lots 1 through 16, according to the 1982 Plat, are the bayfront lots, south of a 40-foot wide road designated as a private road in the plat. That road is now known as Alden Lane. Wetlands over which the Department has jurisdiction ("jurisdictional wetlands") comprise much of the southern portion of bayfront lots and the drainage easement. Among the bayfront lots are both Lot 9 which belongs to Mr. Chbat and Lot 8 which belongs to Mr. Sheehey. A 50-foot easement lies between Lot 9 and Lot 8 and is described more fully below. The presence of jurisdictional wetlands on Mr. Chbat's lot over which he hopes to install the culvert extension requires that he obtain a WRP. To the north of Alden Lane are lots numbered by the 1982 Plat as 17 through 29. The lots are served by Alden Lane and, in what is roughly the northeast quadrant of the subdivision, by two other roads. One of the roads is shown on the 1982 Plat as a "40' PRIVATE ROAD." Id. A 2006 aerial photograph introduced into evidence by Chbat designates the road "unnamed." See Chbat Ex. 5. The other is designated as a "graded county road," on the 1982 Plat. By 2006, it had come to be known as Beatrice Point Road. Id. Beatrice Point Road transects a pond that runs roughly 340 feet (excluding about 30 feet of roadway) in a northeasterly direction from Alden Lane to the southern edge of an area north of the subdivision shown on the 1982 Plat to be un-platted. The pond is most likely the result of a "borrow pit" dug in order to obtain fill for the construction of the roads when the subdivision was initially developed. The southern boundary of the pond lies along approximately 140 feet of Alden Lane's northern edge. The pond is across the street from Lots 9, 10 and 11 of the subdivision. The pond is also not far northeast of the 50-foot easement (the "Drainage Easement") between Lots 9 and 8. The Drainage Easement The Drainage Easement is just to the west of Lot 9. It is noted on the 1982 Plat as a "50' EASEMENT (PRIVATE)." Id. The 50-foot wide Drainage Easement runs the length of the western boundary of Lot 9 and the length of the eastern boundary of Lot 8. The northeast corner of the Drainage Easement is approximately 30 feet from the southwest corner of the pond separated from the pond by the roadway of Alden Lane. The eastern boundary of the Drainage Easement is 226.37 feet in length, or if taken to the middle of Alden Lane, 246.3 feet. The western boundary is 206.13 feet long or if taken to the middle of the road, 226.65 feet. The purpose of the Drainage Easement, as is evident from its denomination in this recommended order, is drainage. As Mr. Street definitively put it at hearing, it is "now and always has been intended to drain stormwater to the [B]ay." Tr. Vol. III at 179. Mr. Street's opinion of the function of the Drainage Easement is supported by drawings submitted by Mr. Chbat as part of the WRP application. The drawings show that the Drainage Easement's function is facilitated by three culverts north of the Easement (referred to during the hearing as "pipes") each of which is intended to direct stormwater at its point of discharge toward the Drainage Easement. See Chbat Ex. 1. One of the culverts ("the Drainage Ditch Culvert") serves a drainage ditch that is to the north of the Easement and Alden Lane. According to the drawings, the drainage ditch lies on the other side of the "un-named road" from the pond, that is, to the west of the pond, and is some 40-to-50 feet north of the Drainage Easement. The Drainage Ditch Culvert extends from the ditch to the southern half of Alden Lane from where it appears from the application's drawings that stormwater would be conveyed to the western side of the Drainage Easement along it's border with Lot 8 and on toward the Bay. In fact, it is a functioning culvert that "conveys water from a swale on the side of the road into the [D]rainage [E]asement." Tr. 64. Once in the Drainage Easement, according to the drawings, the water should flow into the Bay out of a "cut," id., that is labeled on the drawings as an "existing trench." See Chbat Ex. 1. The trench, however, has been filled in with sand by tidal activity or sediment deposited by stormwater or both. The trench has not been maintained, and it no longer exists. The other two culverts (the "Pond Culverts") lie east of the Drainage Ditch Culvert. They catch overflow from the pond caused by stormwater and convey it under and through Alden Lane toward the Drainage Easement. The westernmost Pond Culvert (the "Western Pond Culvert") appears to terminate in Alden Lane near its southern edge just north of the Easement. At the time of hearing, however, it was not functioning properly. "[I]t is full of sand and silted up . . .", tr. Vol. I at 58; "[t]he pipe to the west is clogged and it is not functioning." Tr. Vol. I at 64. It is also at an elevation that would keep it from serving drainage purposes in all but the most severe storm events. See Chbat Ex. 9 at 22. The other Pond Culvert, (the "Eastern Pond Culvert") terminates in the northwest corner of Lot 9 at the border between Lot 9 and the Drainage Easement about 10 feet southeast of the terminus of the Western Pond Culvert. The Eastern Pond Culvert is the culvert with which the Amended Permit is concerned, that is, it is the culvert to be extended by the permit. Calling it a "pipe," Mr. Street offered the following about the assistance the Eastern Pond Culvert offers in conveying stormwater into the Drainage Easement and down to the Bay: There is currently a pipe that discharges into that easement. There . . . was an attempt to place the water from the . . . pond into the easement. And the natural flow of water on this entire property from the road to the [B]ay is north to south. At some point, at least 2004, that drainage easement contained a conveyance at its southern end that would safely discharge stormwater to the [B]ay. Tr. Vol. III at 179-80. Petitioner Sheehey and Lot 8 Thomas Sheehey is the owner of Lot 8, where he has a residence in which he makes his home. He has lived in the residence approximately five years. During that time, Mr. Sheehey has fished in the Bay and enjoyed the use of his kayak and his waverunner on the Bay. He also enjoys "sitting down having a cup of coffee and looking at it," tr. vol. III at 151, as well as watching his neighbors fish. The recreational uses to which he puts the Bay is the reason he chose to purchase a bayfront lot in La Grange Bayou Estates. Over the period of time that he has resided on Lot 8, Mr. Sheehey has observed the effects of rain events on his lot and well as lots close to Lot 8. He has also taken pictures of his property and the near-by lots. Among the photographs were four taken after rain events or "after a wet period," tr. vol. III at 88, at some point in the last four years. The four photos were introduced as a composite exhibit, Petitioner's Ex. 2, with each photograph marked as 2A, 2B, 2C or 2D. Mr. Sheehey could not specify when the pictures were taken in the past four years other than that if a picture had a certain dock in it, then it was taken after January of 2009. Petitioner's Ex. 2A was taken from Mr. Sheehey's lot looking toward the Bay. It shows an area of the lot under water separated from the Bay by a ridge. Petitioner's Ex. 2B is a picture taken from Lot 13 looking west across Lots 12, 11, 10, 9 "down through 8." Tr. Vol. III at 86. Much of what is photographed is among trees and vegetation emerging from water standing above the surface of the soil. Petitioner's Ex. 2C is a picture taken from Alden Lane looking south across Mr. Chbat's property. It shows a wide swath of water that extends from the road across most of the property to the Bay. The water is either in a swale or constitutes overflow outside the swale. The most recent of the four is Petitioner's Ex. 2D, which shows the dock referred to by Mr. Sheehey that was built in early 2009. It is a picture taken from Lot number 13 toward the west through Lots 12, 11, 10, 9. Like the others, it shows vegetation standing in water to the north of the Bay. Taken together, the four pictures in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 demonstrate that significant portions of the lots depicted are under water following sufficient amounts of recent rain. The four photographs that comprise Petitioner's Exhibit 2 are not the only photos taken by Mr. Sheehey that were introduced into evidence. Three other photographs of Mr. Sheehey's, Petitioner's Exhibits 7A, 7B and 7C, were admitted following testimony about them from a long-time observer of the flow of water from Alden Lane to the Bay. A Long-time Observer Thomas Eugene Cummins had lived in La Grange Estates "[t]wo months shy of 20 years," tr. vol. III at 7, at the time of his testimony. His house was the fourth to be constructed in the subdivision. Over the two decades of his residence, the pond between Alden Lane and the property north of the subdivision has been in existence. Consistent with the drawings submitted to DEP as part of the application, when asked where the pond overflows today, Mr. Cummins answered "it drains under Alden Lane on to Mr. Chbat's lot." Tr. Vol. III at 8. Asked by Mr. Chesser at hearing, "When the water comes out of the pond, is it possible to know where it spreads?"1/ Mr. Cummins testified: On really heavy rains, I have watched the normal color of the pond change from its dark blackish gray color into the reddish color that the clay has washed down into it, flow under Alden Lane and on to Mr. Chbat's lot, and then proceed west through the wetland on lots eight, seven, six, and my five, and turn reddish color even in my lot. Tr. Vol. III at 9-10. Mr. Cummins knew the source of the "red color" of the stormwater: red clay introduced to La Grange Estates by the County half a decade earlier. Mr. Cummins testified: Beatrice Point Road, which is the road that runs over the pond, about five years ago the county did some repair on the road and actually put red clay in certain spots to even it out. Tr. Vol. III at 9. Prior to the county's work on the road referred-to by Mr. Cummins, there had been no red clay in the neighborhood. Alden Way, for example, has no red clay. It is a road composed of shell. The only red clay in the subdivision is that which is on Beatrice Point Road. The water that runs onto Mr. Cummins' lot following a heavy rain rises to as much as 12 inches.2/ The water rises as high as it does because it is held back by a naturally-occurring land formation between the Bay and Mr. Cummins property. This geo-formation was referred-to at hearing as the ridge line or the ridge. The Ridge The Ridge was described by Mr. Cummins as a vegetated mass of earth that most of the time, even in heavy rains, sits above the water that collects on the bayfront lots of La Grange Estates. The Ridge prevents a substantial amount of stormwater runoff from entering the Bay from the wetlands on the southern portion of the subdivision's bayfront lots. For that reason, the ridge is called "our upland,3/" tr. vol. III at 13, according to Mr. Cummins. Between Lot 9 and Lot 5, the ridge varies in width "anywhere between 10 feet . . . up toward Mr. Chbat's lot, down to [Mr. Cummins'] lot where its around 30 or 40 feet [wide.]" Id. (It may extend, in fact, across all of the bayfront lots.) The ridge meanders not far from the shoreline. Id. In some places it is as narrow as five feet. The height of the ridge varies as well from as low as one foot to as high as two and half feet. Mr. Street also testified about the Ridge, referring to it in his testimony as a "ridge line": Now, there is a ridge line, and there's been a lot of testimony about this ridge line, that it exists across all of the lots. My testimony was, essentially, related to the review that I did, which was primarily associated with lots eight and nine, and the drainage easement between them. And from what I can tell, the elevation of that ridge line is give or take three. Elevation three, not a height of three. An elevation of three. It could be lower, and perhaps, is higher. And its subject to the vagaries of a number of factors, flow of stormwater, wave action, tidal influence, and the like. And these accretions and depositions of sand over time change that ridge line. And sometimes, it opens up. And sometimes it may not have a natural opening, depending on where you are along that entire stretch of beach. * * * [T]o the extent there is an opening in that ridge line, water will flow naturally to the bay. Tr. Vol. III at 180-181. An "east west flow of water," tr. vol. III at 181, along the bayfront lots, that is, a flow of water either in an easterly direction or a westerly one is contrary to the flow from Alden Lane north of the lots to the Bay south of the lots. Whether flowing east or west, the water in the southern portions of the bayfront lots is "controlled by the ridge line." Id. In other words, stormwater that flows from north to south across the bayfront lots, including Mr. Chbat's and the Drainage Easement, is going to collect and begin to flow from east to west or west to east at some point north of the Ridge before it drains into the Bay. The only exception to east-west flow, as made clear by Mr. Street, is when and if there is an opening in the Ridge that allows the water otherwise held back by the Ridge to flow southward into the Bay. The east-west flow of the water along the Ridge was described at hearing as "unnatural." Id. In fact, it is not un-natural. The Ridge is the cause of the east-west flow and, as Mr. Street testified, the Ridge is the result of natural processes such as tidal influence, wave action, accretion and deposition of sand.4/ The Ridge is shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 7A,5/ another photograph taken by Mr. Sheehey. The ridge as shown in the picture is well vegetated and above water to its north and higher than the Bay to its south. It is quite clear that if there is no opening in the ridge to the Bay, stormwater north of the ridge is forced to flow in east-west directions and is prevented from flowing into the Bay. Petitioners' Exhibit 7B is a photograph of the southern terminus of a swale (see paragraphs 40 - 49, below) on Mr. Chbat's property. It shows the swale cut through the Ridge. Water, however, does not appear to be running from the end of the swale into the bay. It appears that the end of the swale is a few feet from the Bay separated by a narrow sandy area on the shore. Nonetheless, the photograph shows that there is potential for stormwater to flow from the swale when the swale has more water in it. Petitioner's Exhibit 7C is a picture of the pond6/ across the street from Mr. Chbat's Lot 9. Mr. Chbat and Lot 9 Michael Chbat is the owner of Lot 9. He purchased the lot "[t]o build a house on it." Tr. Vol. I at 22. Because he has family close by (in Fort Walton Beach), Mr. Chbat expects to use a house built on the lot for weekend visits. His ultimate aspiration is to live in a house on Lot 9 after he retires from his position as a construction engineer with the City of Tallahassee. At hearing, Mr. Chbat described Lot 9 on the day he bought it: "the lot was overgrown. It drained from north to south. It had water standing on it. And it had a pipe [the Eastern Pond Culvert] on the northwest corner discharging." Tr. Vol. I at 23. He also described the state of the lot at the time of hearing. The Eastern Pond Culvert on the northwest corner was still there. The lot had been cleared to some extent to rid it of invasive species. Overgrown vegetation was trimmed or cleared to make room for a driveway permitted by the Department and "a parking pad in the front area of it, as well as an access pad in the uplands." Id. A dock had also been constructed from the property into the Bay. The most significant difference between the lot at the time of purchase and the lot at the time of hearing for purposes of this proceeding is that the lot now has a swale (the Swale) that runs from the point of discharge of the Eastern Pond Culvert "all of the way to the bay area." Id. The Swale The Swale was put in sometime after March 20, 2007, as the result of a Settlement Agreement fully executed on that date "By and Between Michael Chbat and Thomas L. Sheehey." Petitioner's Ex. 10. The Settlement Agreement followed events that commenced in 2004 when Mr. Chbat filed an application (the "2004 Application") with DEP for a WRP primarily to construct a house and a boardwalk leading from the house on Lot 9 to a dock in the Bay. The 2004 Application also proposed the extension of the Eastern Pond Culvert with a "pipe" along the western boundary of Chbat's property in a manner substantially similar to the culvert extension allowed by the Amended Permit that is the subject of this proceeding. On October 28, 2005, DEP proposed that the 2004 Application be granted. The permit (the "Proposed Original Permit") was assigned No. 66-0235320-001-DF. See Petitioner's Ex. 10, at 2. The Proposed Original Permit was challenged by Mr. Sheehey when he "filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing contesting certain action authorized under the [Proposed Original] Permit . . . specifically the relocation of a drainage pipe . . . ." Petitioner's Ex. 10, at 2. After referral of the petition to DOAH, Mr. Chbat and Mr. Sheehey wrote in the Settlement Agreement that they had "determined that it is in their best interests to settle this matter amicably pursuant to the terms hereafter". Id. Among the terms is that Chbat would file an Amended Application. See id. The agreed-to amendment to the 2004 Application was attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit "A," a drawing of a "Drainage Swale Plan," produced by Genesis Group for Mr. Chbat. The drawing depicts a swale that runs from the discharge point of the Eastern Pond Culvert nearly the full length of the western boundary of Lot 9 to the Bay. See Exhibit "A" to Petitioner's Ex. 10. The Swale was designed to take the place of the 2004 Application's proposal for a "pipe"7/ attached to the point of the discharge from the Eastern Pond Culvert. The Settlement Agreement received the support of DEP because the Department believed that a swale would assist in improving the quality of the stormwater discharged to the Bay over the untreated discharge from the end of the "pipe." Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement the 2004 Application was amended. The Department amended the Proposed Original Permit accordingly and final agency action was taken with the issuance of a permit to Mr. Chbat (the "Final Original Permit") found in DEP Permit File No. 66-0235320-001- DF. Installation of the Swale The Swale was installed, but it did not work as intended. The result of the Swale's installation was more water on the lot rather than less. Mr. Chbat described the after-effects of the Swale: "it started bringing more water to the lot . . .". Tr. Vol. I at 31. The increased amount of water is the result of several factors, one of which is tidal influence: the tide from the Bay pushes water into the Swale. "[A]bout halfway on the swale . . . that water from the bay was meeting the water from the pipe . . .". Id. The water from the Bay tide and the stormwater conveyed by the Swale would meet at "about the middle of the span of the swale." Id. The result was "a lot more water," id., on the lot. Mr. Thomason confirmed Mr. Chbat's assessment that the reason the Swale did not function as effectively as necessary is tidal flow onto Lot 9 from the Bay particularly from high winds. But tidal flow onto Lot 9 and the interruption in the discharge of stormwater through the Swale are not the only problems. There is also a maintenance factor that accompanies tidal flow: sand deposition. Mr. Thomason elaborated: "[D]uring storm events or [just normal] wave action in the bay, sand is brought back up on to . . . the sandy area at the end of [Lot 9] next to the [Bay.]"8/ Tr. Vol. I at 62. The influx of sand onto Lot 9 is not just a problem for adequate functioning of the Swale. The Drainage Easement has "the same problem." Id. Both the Swale and the Drainage Easement are plagued by deposition of sand pushed landward by normal tidal influences and storm events. Maintenance of the Swale and the Drainage Easement, therefore, would assist the drainage of stormwater into the Bay. The tidal influence and maintenance issues that Mr. Chbat encountered with the Swale led him to apply for a different and new permit. That application was filed in 2008. The 2008 Application Mr. Chbat filed a "Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida" with DEP on August 1, 2008 (the "2008 Application"). See Chbat Exhibit 1. The work to be approved was similar to the work originally proposed in the 2004 Application in that both applications proposed installation of a "pipe" to be fixed to the discharge point of the Eastern Pond Culvert that would run along the western boundary of Lot 9 toward the Bay. A description of the work is contained in Section 10 of the 2008 Application: "Extension of an existing stormwater pipe within a private lot approximately 150 feet. The slope for the proposed pipe extension will be at minimum so that stormwater will be treated further, and minimizing erosion." Chbat Ex. 1 at 3. After the filing of the 2008 Application, Mr. Chbat learned that Mr. Sheehey objected to the newest Chbat proposal because he believed 150 feet is not lengthy enough to clear the Ridge. See Chbat Exhibit 2. In order to cure the objection, Mr. Chbat proposed a modification to the 2008 Application. He attached a "sealed and signed drawing," id., to a letter dated September 18, 2008, that he submitted to DEP. The drawing shows the extension to be 177 feet, 27 feet more than initially proposed by the 2008 Application. The additional 27 feet was intended to ensure that the discharge would be directly into the Bay in order to "eliminate any possible run-off impact to adjacent properties." Id. The modification was accepted by DEP." See exhibit number 19/ attached to the Amended Permit, Chbat Exhibit 4. There was conflicting evidence in the proceeding on whether the outfall from a culvert extension of 177 feet will be bayward of the Ridge. The issue was put to rest by Mr. Street’s testimony in rebuttal at the hearing. See Tr. Vol. III at 194 and 203-4. His testimony establishes that the point of discharge at the end of the culvert extension will clear the Ridge so that the discharge will be directly into the Bay. The Mound The culvert extension is designed at an elevation and with cover (presumably sod). The extension runs through jurisdictional wetlands and segments them. It does not, however, isolate any portion of the wetlands. The wetlands on Mr. Chbat's property and those to the immediate east and west of it, therefore, will retain their status as jurisdictional wetlands should the extension be installed. With its sod cover, the culvert extension will be a mini-berm (or a "mound" as Mr. Street called it) at an elevation of 17 to 18 inches above grade. Water that pools to its west will no longer be able to flow eastward of the mound (except rarely under the most extreme weather events.) Conversely, water that collects to its east will no longer be able to flow westward of the extension. It would have to be a severe storm event for water to rise above the mound. Mr. Chbat has never seen water rise to 18 inches above grade and Mr. Cummins testified the highest water ever gets on his property is roughly 12 inches. The Department approved the 2008 Application as modified to lengthen the extension to 177 feet and issued the Amended Permit. But an incorrect and critical assumption was made during review of the application that related to the mound. Review of the 2008 Application During his review of the application, Mr. Street, as DEP's stormwater engineer, assumed from the drawings that the Drainage Easement is functional.10/ The assumption was expressed in Mr. Street's testimony in the Department's case-in-chief: Q [D]id you determine whether the pipe, as it would be mounded . . . [the culvert extension covered in sod] . . . would create problems for storm water flow? A I looked at that. There were two conclusions that I drew. One was that the mound would create a higher water elevation on the Chbat property east of the mound, but would not create standing water west of the mound extending into the [Drainage E]asment . . . . Which on the drawings that I reviewed showed an existing trench at the south end of that easement. And it was my opinion that any water that fell west of the mound would exit through the easement. Tr. Vol. II at 92 (emphasis added.) Mr. Street's assumption that water would not pool to the west of the mound in the Drainage Easement and toward Mr. Sheehey's property was contradicted by Mr. Sheehey's stormwater engineer, Mr. Porterfield. THe Porterfield Testimony and Support for It at Hearing The testimony at hearing of Mr. Porterfield, who conducted a site visit, established the opposite of what Mr. Street assumed. The volume of stormwater runoff that pools east of the mound, that is, water on Lot 9, will not be as great as the volume as the water that pools west of the mound. Water that would have flowed onto Lot 9 from the Eastern Pond Culvert will flow directly to the Bay via the culvert extension. The extension will also protect the Drainage Easement and Lot 8 from water that would have flowed from the Eastern Pond Culvert onto that property. But there is a significant difference between stormwater to the west of the extension and to the east. To the extension's west, the Drainage Easement and Lot 8 will have to contend with stormwater from the Drainage Ditch Culvert, the culvert north of Alden Lane that does not convey stormwater from the pond but that like the Pond Culverts has a discharge point directed at the Drainage Easement. How often and to what extent pooling of stormwater will occur west of the mound due to its presence is difficult to determine on the state of this record.11/ No studies or analyses of the likelihood and severity of storm events and the volumes of stormwater runoff that would be produced by them were conducted by any of the stormwater engineers in the case nor were any such analyses done with regard to pooling caused by the presence of the covered culvert extension. The testimony of Mr. Porterfield, however, and other evidence, demonstrates that that additional collection of water west of the mound caused by the mound will occur following heavy rain. Mr. Street was present in the hearing room throughout the entire hearing, including during the presentation of Mr. Sheehey's case. As Mr. Street candidly testified on rebuttal after he had heard all the evidence: I would also maintain that the drainage easement which has signs of a historical usage as a drainage easement with a trench, in fact, that conveys water safely to the bay, that should be re-established and maintained. That’s what it’s there for.” Tr. Vol III at 181 (emphasis added.) Thus, it became clear to Mr. Street after listening to all the evidence in the case that the Drainage Easement has not been properly maintained. The trench that was expected to carry stormwater toward the Bay no longer exists. In short, the testimony of Mr. Street, for all his many strengths as a witness, falls short of supporting the position of the Department and Mr. Chbat. Having never visited the site,12/ he approved the project on the basis of drawings that do not conform to the on-site physical reality. When presented with the evidence at hearing that the Drainage Easement is not functioning, he championed re-establishment and maintenance of the Drainage Easement. Mr. Chbat placed part of the Swale's functionality problem on the tide pushing stormwater northward but his case also recognized the maintenance problem caused by deposition of sand that besets the Swale. Mr. Thomason, moreover, recognized that the Drainage Easement has the same maintenance issue. Mr. Chbat's stormwater engineer testified During storm events or just normal wave action in the bay, sand is brought back up on to. . . the sandy area at the end of [Chbat's] lot next to the water. And so that . . . tends to inhibit the natural flow down the swale . . . we have the same problem on the drainage easement . . . where sand builds up in that discharge. Tr. Vol. I at 62 (emphasis added). From this record, it is clear that neither the Swale nor the Drainage Easement functions properly. Their functional status, moreover, is due in significant part to lack of maintenance. It may be that maintenance ultimately will not solve the problem; maintenance efforts to keep the Swale and Drainage Easement clear of the sand deposited by tidal activity may require too much effort for them to be reasonably required. But that evidence was not produced. Indeed, the record was silent as to any maintenance efforts with regard to the Swale by Mr. Chbat or with regard to the Drainage Easement by the owner of the easement. The record is also silent as to whether DEP voiced any concern about the maintenance issues that beset the Swale. It is clear that concern was not raised by the Department in regard to the Drainage Easement until the rebuttal phase of the hearing, since the assumption was made that the easement was properly maintained. Whatever communication may have occurred with regard to maintenance issues among the parties, the Department issued the Amended Permit.13/ The Permit/Authorization Number for the Amended Permit is 66-235320-002-DF.14/ Issued December 19, 2008, the Amended Permit has an expiration date of December 19, 2013. The expiration date coincides with the construction phase of five years on the face of the Amended Permit. See Chbat Ex. 4. Mr. Sheehey Challenges the Amended Permit On January 6, 2009, Mr. Sheehey, pro se, filed with DEP a petition (the "Petition") seeking a formal administrative hearing with regard to "Amended Wetland Resource Permit 66- 00235320-002-DF." Although the Petition makes reference to the Amended Permit, it seeks in the first instance enforcement of the Settlement Agreement that relates to the Final Original Permit. The Petition states: "Petitioner believes that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction over this matter and should enforce the March 20, 2007 Settlement Agreement which requires that Permittee act in conformance with Exhibit 'A' of the Agreement [the drawing of the Swale]." In the event that DEP declined to enforce the Settlement Agreement, the Petition sets out disputed issues of material fact that relate to issuance of the Amended Permit. The Petition was referred to DOAH on February 19, 2009. One week before the final hearing, the Department filed the motion in limine that is discussed in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. The motion was granted to the extent that it sought to preclude Sheehey from introducing evidence that supported enforcement of the Settlement Agreement since the 2008 Application, which, while bearing similarity to the 2004 Application, is nonetheless an independent application that should be approved or denied on its own merits without regard to the 2004 Application, the Proposed Original Permit, the Settlement Agreement or the Final Original Permit. The case proceeded to hearing on the remaining issues raised by the Petition: 1) whether Sheehey has standing to contest approval of the 2008 Application; 2) whether Chbat gave the notice required by Section 373.413, Florida Statutes, and 3) whether Chbat's application meets the criteria in statutes and rules for issuance of the Amended Permit. Standing The findings of fact relevant to Mr. Sheehey's standing are found in paragraph 9, above. Notice Notice of the 2008 Application was published in The Defuniak Springs Herald-Breeze, a newspaper published in Defuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida. The notice was published on October 23, 2008. The evidence presented by Mr. Sheehey concerning lack of legal notice consisted of testimony by Mr. Sheehey at hearing in response to questions from his counsel. See Tr. Vol. III at 134. The testimony does not establish that Mr. Sheehey was a person who had filed a written request for notification of any pending application affecting his particular area. The testimony of Mr. Sheehey, moreover, establishes that he was given oral notice of the application by Mr. O'Donnell within four days of its filing. WRP Permitting Criteria To obtain a WRP, an applicant must satisfy the criteria in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-312 and Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. These criteria govern a range of topics including water quality. Water Quality15/ Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-312.080 provides that no permit shall be issued unless the Department has been supplied with reasonable assurances that the proposed work will not violate water quality standards. Water that enters the pond spends some amount of time in the pond (residence time) before flowing out. During residence time, solids drop out of the water so that the quality of the stormwater that flows out of the pond is reasonably expected to be better than the quality of the stormwater runoff when it entered the pond. Vegetation surrounding the pond, furthermore, enhances the quality of the water in the pond, whether the water’s source is runoff or rain falling directly into the pond. The water that flows out of the pond north of Alden Lane is “existing discharge.” Tr. Vol. I at 65. It generally made its way to the Bay prior to the Swale. Some of it makes its way to the Bay via the Swale now; some of it outside the Swale as overflow. The culvert extension will convey that discharge to the Bay if the extension is installed. The quality of the water is not significantly less when it discharges to the Bay via the Swale or otherwise from the Chbat property than when it would enter the culvert extension should it be installed. It is true that the Swale would have provided filtration and additional treatment to the discharge from the Eastern Pond Culvert as does the Chbat property in general. But that does not mean that the quality of the culvert’s discharge is a concern. The Swale may have been an option preferable to the extension of the culvert as far as water quality goes but all parties agree that the Swale has failed as a conveyance (albeit Mr. Sheehey maintains that the Swale would work with proper maintenance.) That there is a discharge method that improves the quality of the discharge, such as a swale, does not mean that the discharge to the Bay via the culvert extension is of insufficient quality. None of the parties tested the quality of the discharge from the Eastern Pond Culvert. The Department, nonetheless, offered evidence with regard to its quality. The Department concluded that the quality of the pond and its discharge were not of concern. Had the pond been contaminated to an extent that would have given rise to concerns, moreover, the Swale or the culvert extension as a means of conveying the discharge to the Bay would not have made a “discernible difference.” Tr. Vol. II at 80. The Department provided evidence of assumptions made with regard to the quality of the water that led the Department to conclude that testing of the discharge was unnecessary. Mr. O’Donnell, the Department’s expert in the application of state rules and statutes in wetland resource permitting, detailed the assumptions at hearing: My assumption was that that pond was dug some time in the past as a way to provide fill for roads. That it was never any part of . . . [a] stormwater treatment system. And that it conveyed upstream water through the pond and then on down into Choctawhatchee Bay. It was strictly a [borrow pit and a conveyance pond.] It was never permitted as a treatment system in any way that I was aware of in my diligence [in determining whether the extension should be permitted.] Tr. Vol. II at 79. Once Mr. O’Donnell’s testimony entered the record at the behest of Mr. Chbat, the burden shifted to Mr. Sheehey to prove that the applicant had not provided reasonable assurance of water quality. Mr. Sheehey did not offer evidence of any testing of the discharge. Nor did he offer testimony that rebutted Mr. O’Donnell’s opinion. In fact, the testimony of Mr. Wilkinson (Mr.Sheehey's witness) supported Mr. O'Donnell's opinion with regard to water quality. See Tr. Vol. III at 112. In sum, the Department made assumptions that are found to be reasonable based on Mr. O’Donnell’s expertise and experience. Those assumptions were not shown to be unreasonable by Mr. Sheehey. The Department’s conclusions about water quality flow directly from Mr. O’Donnell’s reasonable assumptions. Reasonable assurances have been provided that the project will not violate water quality standards. Public Interest Test Choctawhatchee Bay is not designated as an “outstanding Florida water.” The test that Mr. Chbat must meet therefore is whether the activity proposed by the permit application is “not contrary to the public interest.” § 373.414, Fla. Stat. In making that determination, the Department is directed by the statute to consider and balance seven criteria. See § 373.414(a) 1-7, Fla. Stat. Of the seven, three are at issue once water quality is determined to be of no concern. Two of the three, “[w]hether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature,” Section 373.414(1)(a)5., Florida Statutes, and “[t]he current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity,” Section 373.414(1)(a)7., Florida Statutes, do not require in-depth consideration. With regard to the nature of the project time-wise, the evidence establishes that the culvert extension is intended to be permanent. With regard to current condition, the area affected by the proposed activity is a residential lot, a substantial portion of which is under water following heavy rain. To facilitate the conveyance of stormwater, the lot is served by the Swale. The Swale is not functioning optimally because of lack of maintenance and because of the Ridge. With regard to relative value from the standpoint of water quality, the function being performed by the lot and the Swale is little, at least as established by this record. While it is certainly true that the lot with or without the Swale will filtrate and otherwise treat stormwater runoff from the pond, the difference in the quality of the stormwater conveyed by the culvert extension from that which would enter the Bay without the extension is not significant. See the discussion above of Mr. O’Donnell’s accepted opinions. Of the seven statutory criteria to be weighed and balanced by the Department, the one that is central to this case is found in subparagraph 1., of subsection (1)(a): “[w]hether the [culvert extension] will adversely affect . . . the property of others.” The “property of others” in this case is the property of Mr. Sheehey. The Project’s Effect on the Property of Mr. Sheehey. For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 63-70, above, Mr. Chbat has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the project will not have a detrimental effect on the property of Mr. Sheehey. The extent of the detrimental effect to Mr. Sheehey's property is difficult to determine from this record but it is highly likely based on all the evidence of record that there will be a detrimental effect: additional flooding in heavy rain events.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection deny17/ the Amended Permit for the failure of Mr. Chbat to provide reasonable assurances that the project will not adversely affect Mr. Sheehey's property. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 14th day of January, 2010.
Findings Of Fact The Dunes Golf and Country Club, Sanibel, is a partnership owned by John K. Kontinos and William R. Frizzell. They operate a nine hole golf course consisting of 65 acres of the eastern portion of Sanibel Island. The golf course is open to the public and, during the winter season, some 150 to 175 persons utilize the facility daily, but in the period May--November, it is utilized by only about 15 or 20 persons per day. The golf course is presently irrigated by water obtained from the lower Hawthorn and Suwannee aquifers through a well that is approximately 737 feet deep. On the days that water is pumped from the well, the pumping duration is from 8 to 12 hours per day, but the monthly hours during which pumping occurs averages approximately 155 hours per month. There is another existing well in another portion of the applicant's property which extends 896 feet into the Suwannee aquifer. The well presently in use (well number 1) has 546 feet of casing and the well that is not in use (well number 2) has 700 feet of casing. (Testimony of Kontinos, Exhibits 2, 4) On December 15, 1977, the Dunes Golf and Country Club submitted an application to the South Florida Water Management District for a consumptive use permit to withdraw 320 acre feet of groundwater per year to irrigate an area of approximately 109 acres. The intent of the application was to obtain a sufficient quantity of water to irrigate the golf course which the applicant intends to enlarge to consist of 18 holes. The additional 9 holes would cover some 44 acres and well number 2 is intended to be activated to provide additional water for this purpose. (Testimony of Kontinos, Keiling, Exhibits 1- 2) The South Florida Water Management District issued the required public notice of the application on March 30, 1978, and objections to the application were received by that agency from the City Council of Sanibel, the Island Water Association, Inc., and George R. Campbell. Public notice of hearing on the application was duly published on March 30, 1978. (Exhibits 5-7) The staff of the South Florida Water Management District reviewed the application and recommended continuation of the applicant's existing use from the lower Hawthorn Formation and use of additional irrigation water from the Suwannee aquifer in the total amount of 320 acre feet annually. It also recommended that the issuance of a permit should be conditioned in various respects to include semiannual submission of water quality data and pumpage records for each well, installation and maintenance of well controls, and repair or replacement of well casings, valves or controls that leak or become inoperative. The staff further recommended that maximum monthly withdrawals from the lower Hawthorn Formation be limited to 7.5 million gallons and 7.6 million gallons from the Suwannee Formation. At the hearing however, the South Florida Water Management District representative changed these recommendations to 8.9 MO and 6.1 MG respectively. Additionally, the initial recommendation of 320 acre feet annual withdrawal was reduced to 200 acre feet. This amount is considerably less that the average of 600 acre feet used on other comparably sized golf courses. Further the staff representative recommended at the hearing that a further condition be attached to the issuance of the permit; i.e., Condition 15, which requires the permittee to submit analyses of total dissolved concentrations in water samples from each well within 30 days of permit issuance and, if such concentration exceeds 4,000 MG/L, logging procedures as to the affected well will be required with necessary safeguards to be employed to eliminate any interaquifer leakage. (Testimony of Gleason, Exhibit 4) The objections of the City of Sanibel and the Island Water Association, Inc. involved concerns that further withdrawals from the lower Hawthorn aquifer will affect the availability of water which is treated by the water association for general island use. In addition, there is concern about possible contamination of the lower Hawthorn aquifer from interaquifer leakage. The Water Association is a member-owned cooperative that is not under the jurisdiction of the municipality. It is concerned about the draw down in the water table which will be occasioned by additional withdrawals by the applicant. It therefore believes that pumping tests should be conducted prior to the issuance of a permit to provide information concerning the capacity and safe yield of the wells. Although an Association expert testified that the proposed Dunes' withdrawal would create a cone of depression that would extend into and influence the existing Water Association wells, the evidence shows such influence to be minimal due to the fact that the Dunes wells are almost three miles away from the nearest Association well. Further, due to the limited time that the Dunes wells are pumped each day, the aquifer recovers to a certain extent during other hours. Although concerns are felt by the Water Association that water quality will be affected because of leakage from the Suwannee aquifer to the lower Hawthorn aquifer due to possible corrosion of steel casings in the Dunes wells, no evidence was presented that such casings are in fact defective and will contribute to degradation of water quality because of additional withdrawals. The additional special condition placed upon the issuance of a permit by the South Florida Water Management District will require correction of any such leakage that is discovered in the future. Previous studies show that the lower Hawthorn aquifer is separated from the Suwannee aquifer by the Tampa Limestone Formation which would slow down any entry of poorer quality water into the Hawthorn aquifer. It is found that the lesser amounts of water recommended by the South Florida Water Management District at the hearing will further reduce the likelihood of water quality degradation or draw down in other Island wells. (Testimony of Butler, Holland, Nuzman, Gleason, Exhibits 6, 8-13) Ecological concerns were expressed at the hearing by a public witness as to the wastefulness of irrigating golf coup Yes and the requirement for fertilizer in sandy soil which causes leaching of nutrients after heavy water use. (Testimony of Webb)
Recommendation That a permit be issued to the applicant authorizing the consumptive use of the quantity of water recommended by the South Florida Water Management District staff, subject to the recommended conditions thereto. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John H. Wheeler Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 James D. Decker, Esquire Post Office Box 200 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902
Findings Of Fact On October 15, 1982, Hal Thomas Reid Associates applied for a septic tank permit to serve a 16-room motel. On February 2, 1983, this application was amended to a 5,800 gallon septic tank to serve a 32-unit condominium and office. The lot on which this drain field is to be located is 70 feet by 100 feet. When the application was filed, the lot was inspected by the Citrus County Health Department. The elevation of the land averaged 2.5 to 2.9 feet above mean sea level. The 10-year flood plane in this area is 4.9 feet. Occasional high tides inundate this area; however, the water drains off rapidly and no one testified that water ever remained standing as long as seven consecutive days. Usually the water drains off in less than 24 hours. On March 1, 1983, an extremely high tide flooded this area and roads in the vicinity to a depth of approximately one foot. This water remained on the site less than 24 hours. The site is not located adjacent to state waters, is not an area designated as wetlands, and is without the dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (Exhibits 20 and 21). By adding five feet of fill to the site, the bottom of the gravel below the drain pipes will be above the 10-year flood plane. The drain field capacity is adequate to handle the flow from 33 bathrooms of residential units. In approving this permit, the Citrus County Health Department used the 150 gallons per day discharge for residential units rather than the 100 gallons per day discharge from a motel unit. The water table at this location is two feet above mean sea level. This is determined by the elevation reached at high tides for 14 consecutive days. As a condition to Citrus County withdrawing as an intervenor in these proceedings, Applicant agrees: To revegetate and restore any alleged wetlands affected by the permit to a like or similar condition; To install three shallow draft monitor wells around the drain field towards the wetlands area adjacent to the site and towards Woods 'n Waters subdivision, establish an existing level of bacteria count prior to the activation of the septic tank, and to monitor said wells through the Citrus County Health Department on a quarterly basis; and In the event any monitor wells shall test at an unsatisfactory level, Applicant will forthwith correct this condition to the satis- faction of the Citrus County Health Department. This application meets all of the code requirements of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact This application is a request for a consumptive use permit for two wells located in Pasco County, Florida, within the Pithlachascotee Basin. The subject wells are also located in that area wherein the Board of Governors of the Southwest Florida Water Management District declared a water shortage in Order No. 76-3D, Southwest Florida Water Management District. The application seeks an average daily withdrawal of 95,000 gallons with a maximum daily withdrawal of 360,000 gallons. The use of this water is for public supply involving effluent disposal by on-site percolation and ponding. This-use was existing prior to January 1, 1975 with am average daily withdrawal for 1974 of 74,000 gallons. The testimony presented by staff members of the Southwest Florida Water Management District establishes that the consumptive use for which a permit is sought will not violate any of the criteria set forth in Subsections 163- 2.11(2)(3) or (4), Florida Administrative Code, except that the use may significantly induce salt water encroachment. No evidence was presented showing that the sought for consumptive use will, in fact, significantly induce salt water encroachment. In the twelve month period ending October, 1975, applicant's highest average daily withdrawal was 81,000 gallons. This time frame corresponds to that time frame referred to in paragraph 1 of Water Shortage Order No. 76-3D, Southwest Florida Water Management District. In view of Water Shortage Order No. 76-3D, Southwest Florida Water Management District, the staff recommends granting of the permit for an average daily withdrawal of 81,000 gallons and a maximum daily withdrawal of four times that figure or 234,000 gallons. The staff further recommends imposition of the following conditions: That the permittee shall install totalizer flow meters of the propeller driven type on all withdrawal points covered by the permit with the exception of those wells which are currently ganged together using a single meter. That the permittee shall submit to the District a record of his pumpage for each meter, said pumpage to be read on a monthly basis and submitted quarterly to the District on April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 15 for each preceding calendar quarter. That all individual connections to the system be metered. That the permittee have water samples from all wells permitted analyzed for chloride on a monthly basis and results submitted to the District by April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 15 for each preceding calendar year.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should take corrective action by opening and removing a drain gate and dewatering an impoundment known as Lake Susan in Okaloosa County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: a. Background On an undisclosed date, but at least several decades ago, a series of recreational earth dams and impoundments were built by a Mr. Kennedy, who developed an area now known as the Kennedy Lake Subdivision (Subdivision), which lies around five miles northwest of downtown Crestview. The small lakes created by the dams are known as the Kennedy Lake Chain, one of which is Lake Susan, which lies on Respondent's property. At least three or four of the upper lakes drain into Lake Susan through a series of large outflow pipes, which have been authorized by the District. The level of Lake Susan is regulated by a drain gate. The drain gate allows water to flow from Lake Susan through an approximate 100-foot drain pipe underlying a dam and roadway into another lake and wetlands area. The evidence shows that the dam which impounds Lake Susan is more than ten feet but less than twenty-five feet in height. See Petitioner's Exhibit 33. Thus, any work or alterations to the dam and impoundment are subject to the District's jurisdiction. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A-4.041(1)(a). According to Mr. Marcotte, the original drain pipe, or barrel, under the roadway was first installed by the County around 1939. The dam and impoundment were apparently built many years later when the Subdivision was developed. Because the evidence shows that barrels generally have a life of twenty years or so at most, it is likely that the pipe has been replaced at least one time since 1939, most likely when the dam was built. A small portion of the drain pipe under the dam (around thirty feet in length) is situated on Respondent's property while the remainder is located on County right-of- way. The parties agree that Respondent has the responsibility for maintaining the impoundment. (Documents submitted into evidence also suggest that the Lake Susan Homeowner's Association (Association), of whom Respondent is apparently a member, assumed this responsibility at one time.) Finally, at least a part of the dam which impounds the water is located on Respondent's property. A two-lane paved road known as Old Bethel Road runs over the crest of the dam and serves as an important connector road between State Highway 85 and U.S. Highway 90 just west of Crestview. On either February 22, 1973 or 1978, Associated Developers of Florida, Inc., whose relationship to Mr. Kennedy, if any, is unknown, quit-claimed its interest in the road to the County. See Respondent's Exhibit 3. (Because the copy of the deed provided by Respondent is partially illegible, there is some confusion over the exact date.) Since that time, the County has owned and maintained Old Bethel Road. Despite the quit claim deed, for several years after this dispute first arose in 1999 or 2000, the County denied responsibility for maintaining anything except the actual roadway above the dam. Thus, it denied responsibility for repairing the 70-foot portion of the drain pipe which lies on its right-of-way. At the hearing, however, a County representative acknowledged that it has the responsibility to maintain and repair that portion of the drain pipe which runs underneath the dam and lies in the County right-of-way. In 1996, Respondent, who is an engineer and professional helicopter pilot, purchased a residence on Lake Susan located at 1033 Tallokas Road (Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 24 West), Crestview. Tallokas Road is a local road which runs in a northeastern direction from Old Bethel Road (starting approximately 1.1 miles north of U.S. Highway 90) into the Subdivision. Lake Susan lies just north of the intersection of, and between, Tallokas Road and Old Bethel Road; Respondent's property faces Lake Susan to the southwest. In 1998, the Association performed certain repair work on the dam (apparently without authorization from the District), but Hurricane Georges struck the Florida Panhandle later that year causing at least three of the dams in the Kennedy Lake Chain to fail. When the upper dams failed, trees from those impoundments were swept into the deepest part of Lake Susan "knocking [the] standpipe off of its base." Except for a "rusted pipe," however, the dam did not otherwise fail. On August 5, 1999, Respondent (on behalf of himself and the Association), through his engineer, Mr. Dunn, filed an application with the District to perform certain repairs and alterations on the dam caused by Hurricane Georges. In the application, Mr. Dunn recited that Respondent would be responsible for all maintenance of the dam and associated appurtenances. On December 1, 1999, the District issued Surface Water Management Permit No. 4-99-021 (Permit) to the "Lake Susan Homeowners Association c/o Francis Marcotte" for the "Repair of Non-Agricultural Impoundment." The Permit provided that all construction should be completed by November 30, 2002. Under District protocol, once the construction work is successfully completed and approved, the District issues an Operation and Maintenance letter (O & M letter), which allows the permittee to impound water. Until an O & M letter is issued, however, a permittee cannot legally impound water. The District is authorized by rule to "to impose on any permit granted . . . such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the permitted [activity] will be consistent with the overall objective of the District." Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A-4.041(3). Pursuant to this authority, the District imposed eighteen conditions in the Permit, two of which are described below. First, Condition No. 11 of the Permit required that the old spillway system in the dam be excavated and replaced unless the old piping system was determined to be serviceable. It also required that "[i]f the old piping system is determined to be serviceable, the District shall be notified by the project engineer." The District interprets this provision to mean that after the work authorized under the Permit has been completed, the project engineer (Mr. Dunn) must provide the District with a statement as to whether or not the entire piping system under the dam is serviceable. Mr. Dunn, however, construed the provision as only requiring him to certify that portion of the pipe which he found to be serviceable; no other statement was required. The District's interpretation is reasonable and is hereby accepted. Next, Condition No. 15 states that the authorized facility will not be considered complete until an As-Built Certification and Completion Report is filed by the project engineer, and the District determines that the project is in accordance with the approved design and any permit conditions stipulated in the construction authorization. The District interprets this provision to mean that unless all portions of the drain pipe which are not serviceable are replaced, including that portion which lies within the County right-of- way, the project will not be considered complete and no impoundment of waters will be allowed. This construction of the provision is a reasonable one and has been accepted. (The District has not involved itself in the dispute between Respondent and the County over who has the responsibility for replacing that portion of the pipe which lies in the County's right-of-way.) As required by Condition No. 5, on June 28, 2000, a pre-construction meeting was held. The meeting was attended by a County engineer, Respondent's wife, Mr. Dunn, the project contractor (B & H Moving Contractors, Inc.), and District personnel, including Mr. Laird, a District engineer. The discussions that occurred at the meeting are memorialized in a memorandum drafted by Mr. Dunn. See Petitioner's Exhibit 7. During preliminary excavation work performed by B & H Moving Contractors, Inc., it uncovered that portion of the outlet (drain) pipe lying on Respondent's property and found "two holes . . . in the second joint from the old riser" caused by corrosion. Based on this observation, which was disclosed at the pre-construction meeting, Mr. Dunn noted in his memorandum that the "entire pipe may have problems that could result in undermining Old Bethel Road." At the meeting, however, the County declined to agree that it would repair that portion of the pipe on its right-of-way until it could be established "that the pipe under the road was the responsibility of the County." On September 20, 2000, Mr. Laird received a telephone call from Respondent who said that the County had refused to replace the pipe and the parties were at an impasse. Respondent also told Mr. Laird that until the pipe was replaced, he would not shut the gate. Mr. Laird advised Respondent not to allow Lake Susan "to stage up" until the pipe was replaced. A summary of the telephone conversation is found in Petitioner's Exhibit 10, which was prepared by Mr. Laird immediately after the call. On September 26, 2000, Mr. Dunn advised Respondent by letter that B and H Moving Contractors, Inc. had completed the work on the dam in accordance with the plans and specifications. This included replacement of the drain pipe which lay on Respondent's property. The letter confirmed Mr. Dunn's understanding that Respondent had agreed to "not close the gate until Okaloosa County completes the replacement of their pipe under Old Bethel Road." See Petitioner's Exhibit 11. Over the following months, Respondent engaged in negotiations with the County in an effort to get the County to assume responsibility for its pipe. On August 17, 2000, the County advised Respondent that it would not replace the pipe. However, its engineer agreed to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the County would "cover the material cost of the pipe and the installation of the base and paving of the roadway." The actual work, however, would be performed by Respondent "[s]ince Lake Susan is a private lake and the pipe is part of the control structure for the lake." See Petitioner's Exhibit 12. Respondent was understandably reluctant to perform any work on County property since that would expose him to liability if a subsequent unforeseen event should occur. Although the work was probably completed much earlier, Mr. Dunn filed an "As-Built Certification and Completion Report by Project Engineer (Report) on April 1, 2002, as required by Condition No. 15. See Petitioner's Exhibit 13. That Report indicated as follows: The project was constructed in substantial conformance with the plans and specifications prepared by me. All hydraulic, structural, and environmental considerations appear to have been adequately addressed. The County still has not replaced their pipe under Old Bethel Road. The permittee has completed all work permitted to be done by him and, in my opinion, the project is completed. As noted above, Condition No. 11 required that "[i]f the old piping system is serviceable, the District shall be notified by the project engineer." According to Mr. Dunn, he did not include a certification on the County's drain pipe because he "highly suspected" that the drain pipe lying within the County right-of-way was unserviceable and in the same condition as the pipe found on Respondent's property. Therefore, he limited his certification to the thirty feet of pipe that was replaced. After the Report was filed, a lengthy series of correspondence between the parties ensued. On April 5, 2002, Mr. Laird wrote Respondent acknowledging receipt of the project engineer's Report. He stated that he was not in agreement with Mr. Dunn's certification that the project was complete because the parties had previously concluded at the pre-construction meeting that the entire pipe was unserviceable. He advised Respondent that the "impoundment must be dewatered and maintained in a dewatered condition until such time as this issue is resolved." See Petitioner's Exhibit 14. As a consequence, an O & M letter was never issued by the District. On May 7, 2002, Respondent responded to Mr. Laird's letter and stated that he was "continuing . . . to lower the lake to that of the adjoining one." He also stated that because he had done everything required under his Permit, he hoped that the matter would be considered complete. See Petitioner's Exhibit 15. On May 15, 2002, Mr. Laird responded to the above letter and reiterated that given the questionable condition of the pipe (which lay on County right-of-way), pursuant to Condition 15 the repairs to the impoundment would not be considered complete and the impoundment of water would not be authorized until the entire pipe had been replaced. He requested that Respondent "maintain the water in the lake at a lower level until such time as this issue is resolved." Finally, he reminded Respondent that the District's position on the on-going dispute with the County was that it did not matter who replaced the pipe, so long as it was "replaced and done in a legal manner." See Petitioner's Exhibit 16. By letter dated August 9, 2002, a District regulatory administrator, Mr. Morgan, advised Respondent that District staff had observed that Lake Susan was once again impounding water and that he must notify the District within fourteen days that the impoundment has been dewatered, together with his plans for the replacement of the pipe under Old Bethel Road. See Petitioner's Exhibit 17. On August 26, 2002, Respondent answered the above letter and advised in part that the outlet valve had been stolen by vandals which caused the lake to fill up but that "the valve is now open and the water level is falling." He also asked that his current permit be extended until the County agreed to perform the work. See Petitioner's Exhibit 18. In response to this request, by letter dated September 3, 2002, the District extended the deadline for completion of the project until March 1, 2003. See Petitioner's Exhibit 19. On November 21, 2002, Mr. Morgan again advised Respondent by letter that the District staff had observed that Lake Susan remained "at or near normal pool." The letter went on to say that while the District recognized Respondent's "difficulties in resolving [the issue with the County]," he was not allowed to impound water until the matter was resolved. See Petitioner's Exhibit 20. On March 3, 2003, a District field representative, Jerry Sheppard, met with Respondent concerning the level of water in the impoundment. He memorialized the conversation in a memorandum prepared the same date. See Petitioner's Exhibit According to the memorandum, the pond was "full due to excessive rains," and even though the gate was open, it had only "partial flow through the outlet pipe but [was] not opened adequately to pass storm water accumulated in the upper pond." The memorandum further stated that Respondent had assured him that "he will open the gate an additional round or two to allow further dewatering to take place while he is away on his job for the next two weeks." At the end of the meeting, Mr. Sheppard "strongly urged that the pond remain dewatered." On March 12, 2003, Mr. Laird advised Respondent by letter that his Permit had expired on March 1, 2003. This meant that Respondent could not undertake any work on the facility without District approval and that he must maintain the facility in a dewatered condition. See Petitioner's Exhibit 22. On January 21, 2004, Mr. Morgan sent Respondent a letter advising that the District staff had observed "that Lake Susan was once again impounding water to within 1.5 inches of the designed water level." He added that "the facility must be completely dewatered, and maintained dewatered, until such time as the issue has been resolved." The letter warned that if Lake Susan was not dewatered, a formal enforcement action would be initiated. Finally, the letter requested that Respondent contact the District within fourteen days "noticing [the District] that the impoundment has been dewatered and [that Respondent] plan[ned] to replace the old pipe under Old Bethel Road, or [Respondent] will remove the head gate from the riser base." See Petitioner's Exhibit 23. On March 3, 2004, Respondent, Mr. Laird, and various County representatives met in Crestview in an effort to resolve the issue of who would replace the remaining portion of the drain pipe. The discussions at the meeting are recorded by Mr. Laird in a memorandum dated March 4, 2004. See Petitioner's Exhibit 24. The memorandum states in part that "all [participants] agreed that the pipe is not serviceable as a spillway pipe." At the meeting, the County refused to accept responsibility for fixing the drain pipe. Its Public Works Director (Director) also stated that even if a quit claim deed showed that the pipe was on their right-of- way, the County would not repair the pipe; instead, the Director asserted that the County would prevent Respondent from impounding water. Finally, contingent upon the Board of County Commissioners approving her recommendation, the Director agreed to purchase the seventy feet of pipe if Respondent would perform all excavation work and install the pipe at his own expense. See Petitioner's Exhibit 24. By letter dated March 5, 2004, the Director confirmed in writing her previous offer to Respondent that she would request authorization from the County to purchase seventy feet of pipe, reconstruct Old Bethel Road after the pipe was replaced, and close the road during the construction process. However, the Director expected Respondent to provide all other necessary material and work effort associated with the pipe replacement. See Petitioner's Exhibit 25. On March 8, 2005, Respondent agreed to accept the County's offer. See Petitioner's Exhibit 26. Presumably based on this understanding, on March 8, 2004, Mr. Morgan advised Respondent that he would "allow up to 90 days for [Respondent] to be able to make the necessary replacement." This was followed by a letter from Mr. Laird on April 12, 2004, requesting that Respondent provide a proposed work schedule so that the District could generate an order extending the time for the work to be completed. See Petitioner's Exhibit 27. On April 27, 2004, Respondent (who was off-shore in the Gulf of Mexico on flight duty) sent a "rapid memo" to Mr. Laird advising that he had just received a verbal bid offer and would forward a work schedule as soon as a formal contract was signed. See Petitioner's Exhibit 29. He also sent Mr. Laird a memorandum on this subject on May 13, 2004, but that document was not made a part of this record. By letter dated May 19, 2005, Mr. Laird answered Respondent's two memoranda and indicated that two technical issues needed to be resolved. He also enclosed for Respondent's review a copy of a draft permit which authorized the work to be performed. See Petitioner's Exhibit 30. Sometime during this time period, and perhaps after he received the bid, Respondent decided that he would not assume the responsibility (and liability) for working on County property and offered instead to pay the County for one- half of the project's cost (which totaled around $25,000.00) so long as the County would do the work. Apparently, the County refused this offer, and the project was never undertaken. On August 12, 2004, a District administrator (Norman Velazquez) advised Respondent's counsel by letter and facsimile that District staff had inspected Lake Susan that morning and observed that "the impoundment was operating at full capacity contrary to previous District communications ordering the dewatering of it." The letter noted that the matter had been discussed by telephone the same day and that counsel had agreed that the information in the letter would be shared with Respondent in a timely manner. See Petitioner's Exhibit 31. By letter dated September 13, 2004, Mr. Velezquez again advised Respondent's counsel that a follow-up inspection that day revealed that "the impoundment was operating at full capacity." The letter also stated that Respondent "is required to dewater the unauthorized impoundment of water by Monday, September 21, 2004." Finally, Respondent was warned that if he did not dewater Lake Susan, it would "leave [the District] no choice but to issue an Administrative Complaint Order against Mr. Marcotte." See Petitioner's Exhibit 32. On February 1, 2005, the District issued its Administrative Complaint. Between April 2003 and December 2004, a District field representative (Mr. Sheppard) visited the site on a number of occasions. On each occasion, he observed that the impoundment was full and that dewatering had not occurred. In July 2005, the County reversed its position and agreed that it had the responsibility to replace the pipe if it was not serviceable. The County also agreed to hire a vendor who would place a special video camera in the pipe to detect any holes, rust, or other deterioration. The County further agreed that if defects were found, it would replace the pipe at its own expense. This was confirmed at hearing by the County's Risk Management Director. On August 25, 2005, the County advised Respondent by letter that the inspection had taken place, that the County was working on a solution and probably intended to "insert a sleeve inside the existing pipe" to correct the problem, and that the project had been assigned to the Public Works Director with "a high priority." The current status of the project is unknown. Although Respondent argues in his Proposed Recommended Order that the District has never established that the County's portion of the drain pipe is unserviceable, the greater weight of evidence shows the opposite to be true. Indeed, all of the experts who testified at hearing agreed that the drain pipe should be replaced due to its age and the defects observed when the dam was excavated and a portion of the pipe exposed for inspection in 2000. In addition, a part of the earthen dam is saturated with moisture, and voids have developed in the interior of the structure. Collectively, these conditions have led the District to properly conclude that the impoundment of the water constitutes a danger to the public since Old Bethel Road might collapse at any time. Because of this, no impoundment of waters should occur until the pipe is replaced.
The Issue Whether Rules 40B-1.702(4); 40B-4.1020(12) and (30); 40B-4.1030; 40B-4.1040(1)(b) and (c); 40B-4.2030(4); 40B-4.3000(1)(a); 40B-4.3010; 40B-4.3020; 40B-4.3030; 40B- 4.3040; and 40B-400.103(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code, of the Suwannee River Water Management District, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for reasons described in the Second Amended Petition to Determine Validity of Rules.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Angelo's is a Florida Limited Partnership, whose address is 26400 Sherwood, Warren, Michigan 48091. The District is an agency of the State of Florida established under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, with its address at 9225 County Road 49, Live Oak, Florida 32060. Angelo's owns property in Hamilton County approximately four miles to the east of Interstate 75 and to the north of U.S. Highway 41, immediately to the east of the Alapaha River. Angelo's conducts commercial sand mining operations on a portion of its property pursuant to various agency authorizations, including an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department), Permit No. 158176-001, and a Special Permit issued by Hamilton County, SP 98-3. The ERP was issued by the Department pursuant to its authority under Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes. Angelo's mining operations constitute a "mining project" as that term is used in Section II.A.1.e of an Operating Agreement Concerning Regulation under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Aquaculture General Permits under Section 403.814, Florida Statutes, between the District and the Department (Operating Agreement). The Operating Agreement has been adopted as a District rule pursuant to Rule 40B-400.091, Florida Administrative Code. Angelo's has filed with the Department an application to modify its ERP to expand its sand mining operations into an area of its property immediately to the west of its current operations (the "proposed expanded area"). Angelo's application is being processed by the Department at this time. Angelo's ERP modification application is being processed by the Department under the Operating Agreement. The District has asserted permitting jurisdiction over the proposed expanded area because the proposed sand mining activities would occur in what the District asserts to be the floodway of the Alapaha. The District asserts that an ERP would be required from the District so that the District can address the work of the district (WOD) impacts. Petitioner has not filed a permit application with the District regarding the project. It is Petitioner's position that to do so would be futile. The Challenged Rules The rules or portions thereof which are challenged in this proceeding are as follows: Rule 40B-1.702(4), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (4) A works of the district permit under Chapter 40B-4, F.A.C., must be obtained prior to initiating any project as outlined in (3) above within a regulatory floodway as defined by the District. Rule 40B-4.1020(12) and (30), Florida Administrative Code, read as follows: (12) "Floodway" or 'regulatory floodway" means the channel of a river, stream, or other watercourse and adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the 100-year flood without cumulatively increasing the 100-year flood elevation more than a designated height. Unless otherwise noted, all regulatory floodways in the Suwannee River Water Management District provide for no more then one-foot rise in surface water. * * * (30) "Work of the district" means those projects and works including, but not limited to, structures, impoundments, wells, streams, and other watercourses, together with the appurtenant facilities and accompanying lands, which have been officially adopted by the governing board as works of the district. Works of the district officially adopted by the board are adopted by rule in Rule 40B-4.3000 of this chapter. Rule 40B-4.1030, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: The implementation dates of this chapter are as follows: January 1, 1986 for Rule 40B- 4.1040(1)(a) which requires persons to obtain surfacewater management permits. April 1, 1986 for Rule 40B- 4.1040(1)(b) and Rule 40B-4.3040 which require persons to obtain works of the district development permit if the proposed development is in one of the following areas adopted as a work of the district. The Alapaha River and its floodway in Hamilton County, Florida; The Aucilla River and its floodway in Jefferson, Madison, or Taylor counties, Florida; The Suwannee River or its floodway in Columbia, Hamilton, Lafayette, Madison, or Suwannee counties, Florida; or The Withlacoochee River and its floodway in Hamilton or Madison counties, Florida. (c) July 1, 1986 for Rule 40B-4.1040(1)(b) or 40B-4.3040 which require persons to obtain work of the district development permit if the proposed development is in one of the following areas adopted as a work of the district. The Santa Fe River and its floodway in Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Gilchrist, Suwannee, or Union counties, Florida; or The Suwannee River and its floodway in Dixie, Gilchrist, or Levy counties, Florida. Rule 40B-4.1040(1)(b) and (c), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (1) Permits are required as follows: * * * Works of the district development permit prior to connecting with, placing structures or works in or across, discharging to, or other development within a work of the district. When the need to obtain a works of the district development permit is in conjunction with the requirements for obtaining a surfacewater management permit, application shall be made and shall be considered by the district as part of the request for a surfacewater management permit application. Otherwise, a separate works of the district development permit must be obtained. Rule 40B-4.2030(4), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (4) The new surfacewater management systems or individual works shall not facilitate development in a work of the district if such developments will have the potential of reducing floodway conveyance. (emphasis supplied) Rule 40B-4.3000(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: The governing board is authorized to adopt and prescribe the manner in which persons may connect with or make use of works of the district pursuant to Section 373.085, Florida Statutes. Further, Section 373.019(15) provides that works of the district may include streams and accompanying lands as adopted by the governing board. In order to implement the non-structural flood control policy of the district, the governing board finds it is necessary to prevent any obstruction of the free flow of water of rivers and streams within the district. Therefore, the governing board does hereby adopt the following rivers and their accompanying floodways as works of the district: The Alapaha River and its floodway in Hamilton County, Florida; . . . . Rule 40B-4.3010, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: A general works of the district development permit may be granted pursuant to the procedures in Rule 40B-1.703 to any person for the development described below: Construction of a structure for single-family residential or agricultural use including the leveling of land for the foundation and associated private water supply, wastewater disposal, and driveway access which is in compliance with all applicable ordinances or rules of local government, state, and federal agencies, and which meets the requirements of this chapter. A general permit issued pursuant to this rule shall be subject to the conditions in Rule 40B-4.3030. Rule 40B-4.3020, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Content of Works of the District Development Permit Applications. Applications for a general work of the district development permit shall be filed with the district and shall contain the following: Form 40B-4-5, "Application for General Work of the District Development Permit," Suwannee River Water Management District, 4-1-86, hereby incorporated by reference and which contains the following: The applicant's name and complete address including zip code; The owner's name and complete address if applicant is other than the owner; If applicable, the name, complete address, phone number, and contact person of the applicant or owner; Copies of all permits received from local units of government, state, or federal agencies, specifically a copy of the building or development permit issued by the appropriate unit of local government, including any variances issued thereto, and a copy of the onsite sewage disposal system permit issued by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services under Chapter 10D- 6, Florida Administrative Code; A site plan to scale showing all improvements, work, or works with any conditions or limitations placed thereon; and Any supporting calculations, designs, surveys, or applicable documents, which in the applicant's opinion, may support the application. Applications for individual or conceptual approval works of the district development permits shall be filed with the district and shall contain the following: Form 40B-4-4, "Application for Surfacewater Management System Construction, Alteration, Operation, Maintenance, and/or Works of the District Development", Suwannee River Water Management District, 10-1-85, hereby adopted by reference and which contains the following: The applicant's name and complete address including zip code; The owner's name and complete address if applicant is other than the owner; If applicable, the name, complete address, phone number, and contact person of the owner. General project information including: The applicant's project name or identification number; The project location relative to county, section, township, and range, or a metes and bounds description; The total project area in acres; The total land area owned or controlled by the applicant or owner which is contiguous with the project area; A description of the scope of the proposed project including the land uses to be served; A description of the proposed surfacewater management system or work; A description of the water body or area which will receive any proposed discharges from the system; and Anticipated beginning and ending date of construction or alteration. Copies of all permits received from, or applications made to, local units of government, state, or federal agencies. A site plan to scale showing all improvements, work, or works with any conditions or limitations placed thereon. Any supporting calculations, designs, surveys, or applicable legal documents, which in the applicant's opinion, support the application. Copies of engineer or surveyor certifications required by this chapter. Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Conditions for Issuance of Works of the District Development Permits. The district will not approve the issuance of separate permits for development in a work of the district for any proposed project that requires a district surfacewater management permit pursuant to Part II of this chapter. For such projects, development in a work of the district may be authorized as part of any surfacewater management permit issued. The district will not approve the issuance of a works of the district development permit for any work, structures, road, or other facilities which have the potential of individually or cumulatively reducing floodway conveyance or increasing water-surface elevations above the 100-year flood elevation, or increasing soil erosion. The district will presume such a facility will not reduce conveyance or increase water-surface elevations above the 100-year flood elevation or increase soil erosion if: Roads with public access are constructed and laid out in conformance with the minimum standards of local government. Where roads are not required to be paved, the applicant must provide design specifications for erosion and sediment control. Where roads are required to be paved, swales will generally be considered adequate for erosion and sediment control; Buildings in the floodway are elevated on piles without the use of fill such that the lowest structural member of the first floor of the building is at an elevation at least one foot above the 100-year flood elevation; The area below the first floor of elevated buildings is left clear and unobstructed except for the piles or stairways; A permanent elevation monument is established on the property to be developed by a surveyor. The monument shall be adequate to establish land surface and minimum buildup elevations to the nearest 1/100 of a foot; No permanent fill or other obstructions are placed above the natural grade of the ground except for minor obstructions which are less than or equal to 100 square feet of the cross-sectional area of the floodway on any building or other similar structure provided that all such obstruction developed on any single parcel of land after the implementation date of this chapter is considered cumulatively; No activities are proposed which would result in the filling or conversion of wetlands. For any structure placed within a floodway which, because of its proposed design and method of construction, may, in the opinion of the district, result in obstruction of flows or increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood, the district may require as a condition for issuance of a work of the district development permit that an engineer certify that such a structure will not obstruct flows or increase 100-year flood elevations. The following conditions shall apply to all works of the district development permits issued for development on lands subdivided after January 1, 1985: Clearing of land shall be limited [except as provided in (b) and (c) below] to that necessary to remove diseased vegetation, construct structures, associated water supply, wastewater disposal, and private driveway access facilities, and no construction, additions or reconstruction shall occur in the front 75 feet of an area immediately adjacent to a water. Clearing of vegetation within the front 75 feet immediately adjacent to a water shall be limited to that necessary to gain access or remove diseased vegetation. Harvest or regeneration of timber or agricultural crops shall not be limited provided the erosion of disturbed soils can be controlled through the use of appropriate best management practices, the seasonal scheduling of such activities will avoid work during times of high-flood hazard, and the 75 feet immediately adjacent to and including the normally recognized bank of a water is left in its natural state as a buffer strip. As to those lands subdivided prior to January 1, 1985, the governing board shall, in cases of extreme hardship, issue works of the district development permits with exceptions to the conditions listed in Rule 40B-4.3030(4)(a) through (c). The 75-foot setback in paragraphs (a) through (d) above shall be considered a minimum depth for an undisturbed buffer. The limitations on disturbance and clearing within the buffer as set out in paragraphs through (d) above shall apply, and any runoff through the buffer shall be maintained as unchannelized sheet flow. The actual depth of the setback and buffer for any land use other than single-family residential development, agriculture, or forestry shall be calculated in accordance with the methodology in: "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds", U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Division, Technical Release 55, June 1986; and, "Buffer Zone Study for Suwannee River Water Management District", Dames and Moore, September 8, 1988, such that the post-development composite curve number for any one-acre area within the encroachment line does not exceed; a value of 46 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class A soils; a value of 65 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class B soils; a value of 77 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class C soils; or a value of 82 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class D soils. (emphasis supplied) Rule 40B-4.3040, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Unlawful Use of Works of the District. It shall be unlawful to connect with, place a structure in or across, or otherwise cause development to occur in a work of the district without a works of the district development permit. The district may use any remedy available to it under Chapter 120 or 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40B-1, Florida Administrative Code, to cause an unpermitted development to be removed or permitted. It shall be unlawful for any permitted use to violate the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, or this chapter, or the limiting conditions of a works of the district development permit. The district may use any remedy available to it under Chapter 120 or 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40B-1, Florida Administrative Code, to cause the unpermitted use to be removed or brought into compliance with Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and this chapter. Damage to works of the district resulting from violations specified in Rule 40B-4.3040(1) and (2) above shall be repaired by the violator to the satisfaction of the district. In lieu of making repairs, the violator may deposit with the district a sufficient sum to insure such repair. Rule 40B-400.103(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (1) In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter or chapter 40B-4, F.A.C., an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * (h) Will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to s. 373.086. . . . Facts Based Upon the Evidence of Record History of the rules Mr. David Fisk is Assistant Director of the District. At the time of the hearing, he had been employed there for 26 and one-half years. He played a significant role in the rule adoption process of the rules that are the subject of this dispute. As part of that process, the District entered into a consulting contract with an engineering, planning, and consulting firm and consulted with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to conduct what are described as the FEMA flood studies. Additionally, the district commissioned an aerial photography consultant who provided a series of rectified ortho photographs of the entire floodplain of the rivers within the District, and a surveying subcontractor who provided vertical control and survey cross sections and hydrographic surveys of the rivers. The District also worked in conjunction with the United States Geological Survey to accumulate all of the hydrologic record available on flooding. The information was given to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who, operating under FEMA guidelines for conducting flood insurance rate studies, performed the analytical and computer modeling work to identify the flood plains and floodway boundaries. The District used the amassed knowledge of maps, cross sections and surveys that were developed as part of the FEMA flood studies as technical evidence or support for the adoption of the works of the district rules. Following a series of public workshops and public hearings in 1985, the rules were adopted and became effective in 1986. None of the rules were challenged in their proposed state. The District adopted the floodways of the Suwannee, Santa Fe, Alapaha, Aucilla, and Withlacoochee Rivers as works of the district. According to Mr. Fisk, the District adopted the rules pursuant to Section 373.086, Florida Statutes, which provided authority to the District to adopt district works and Section 373.085, Florida Statutes, which provided authority to regulate activities within those works. The Floodway Line Petitioner hired Mr. John Barnard, a professional civil engineer, with extensive environmental permitting experience, to look at the floodway and floodplain issues associated with Petitioner's site and project. Mr. Barnard conducted an engineering study entitled, "Floodplain Evaluation." It was Mr. Barnard's opinion that FEMA's determination of the floodway line was less than precise. Mr. Barnard used FEMA's data regarding the base flood elevation but manually changed the encroachment factor resulting in his placement of the floodway line in a different location than determined by FEMA. Mr. Barnard acknowledged that different engineers using different encroachment factors would reach different conclusions.1/ Respondent's expert in hydrology and hydraulic engineering, Brett Cunningham, noted that the definition of floodway in Rule 40B-4.1020(12), Florida Administrative Code, is essentially the same definition that used is in the FEMA regulations and which also is commonly used across the country in environmental rules and regulations. Mr. Barnard also acknowledged that the District's definition of "floodway", as found in Rule 40B-4.1020(12), Florida Administrative Code, is fairly commonly used by environmental regulatory agencies. Moreover, it was Mr. Cunningham's opinion that the Alapaha River is a stream or watercourse within the meaning of the rule and its floodway an accompanying land. In Mr. Cunningham's opinion, the FEMA flood insurance studies are widely used across the country for a variety of reasons and are typically relied upon by hydrologists and engineers to locate floodways. The definition of "works of the district" in Rule 40B-1020(30), Florida Administrative Code, is taken directly from the language found in Section 373.019(23), Florida Statutes. The statutory definition includes express references to streams and other watercourses, together with the appurtenant facilities and accompanying lands. Petitioner alleges that the phrase "will not cause adverse impact to a work of the SRWMD" as found in Rule 40B- 400.103(1)(h) is not clear because it does not identify what specific adverse impacts are being reviewed. While Petitioner's expert, Mr. Price, was not clear as to what the phrase means, Respondent's expert, Mr. Cunningham, understood the meaning of the phrase and noted that "adverse impact" is a phrase which is very commonplace in the rules and regulations of environmental agencies and is attributed a commonsense definition. The expert engineers differed in their opinions as to the meaning of the term "potential for reducing floodway conveyance" as used in Rule 40B-4.2030(4), Florida Administrative Code. According to Petitioner's expert engineer, Mr. Barnard, "potential for reducing floodway conveyance" is not a specific term that is open to interpretation as an engineer, and that he cannot quantify what constitutes "potential." Respondent's expert, Mr. Cunningham, understood the meaning of the phrase to be any increase in floodway conveyance. It was his opinion that there was nothing about that phrase to cause confusion. Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code, addresses conditions for issuance of works of the district development permits. Petitioner's expert Mr. Price testified that there is no quantification to what constitutes an "increase in soil erosion" as referenced in subsection (2) and linked the reference of soil erosion to a 100-year flood event referenced in the same subsection. Mr. Cunningham was of the opinion that there is no need to quantify an increase in soil erosion in the rule. He noted that soil erosion is used in a common sense manner and that attempting to put a numerical limit on it is not practical and "it's not something that's done anywhere throughout the country. It's just not something that lends itself to easy quantification like flood stages do". Mr. Cunningham's opinion that the words and phrases which Petitioner asserts are vague are words of common usage and understanding to persons in the field is the more persuasive testimony. This opinion is also consistent with statutory construction used by courts which will be addressed in the conclusions of law.
