Findings Of Fact Pal-Mar has filed application No. 29454 pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, requesting approval for a surface water management system known as Phase III of Pal-Mar Water Management District, to serve approximately 3,600 acres of residential land in Martin County, Florida. The project discharges to C-44, the St. Lucie canal. SFWMD's staff report recommends approval be granted for the proposed water management system based on considerations of water quality, rates of discharge, environmental impact and flood protection. Approval is subject to certain conditions which are not material to the instant cause. As background material to the staff report, the staff makes reference to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report entitled "Survey-Review Report of Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project, Martin County," dated September 22, 1967. The Corps of Engineers' report was not used in the decision-making process but rather was included in the staff report to provide a comprehensive overview. Whether the Corps of Engineers' plans were ever implemented would not affect the recommendations of the staff. The land in question is currently zoned "IZ" (interim zoning) according to Martin County's zoning regulations. In this category, if the neighborhood is predominantly one classification of usage, then the zoning director is to be governed by the regulations for that class of usage in determining the standard zoning regulations to be applied to the interim zoning district. If no trend of development has been established in the neighborhood, the minimum standards of the R2 single family zoning district are to be complied with. Rule 16K-4.035, Florida Administrative Code, entitled Basis of Review of Applications for Construction of Works, provides in Section (2) that all applications such as the instant one shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the district's "Basis Of Review For Construction Of Surface Water Management Systems Serving Projects With Two Or More Acres Of Impervious Area Within The South Florida Water Management District - December, 1977." The Basis of Review provides in Part VI that before an application will be considered for the issuance of a permit, the proposed land use must be "compatible with the applicable zoning for the area." The evidence indicates that the land in question has a history of agricultural use. However, the evidence also discloses that far from being a trend towards agricultural use there is a trend away from it. A major portion of the neighboring lands will be devoted to Phases I, II, IV and V, of the Pal-Mar Water Management District. According to Florida Land Sales Board registrations, the land in question is subdivided into one-half acre, one acre, 1.4 acre and two acre lots. The average project density is one lot per acre. In addition, there is some mobile home usage within neighboring areas. If there is a trend, it is toward R2 zoning type usage. SFWMD's staff concluded that the proposed land use was compatible with the applicable zoning for the area. Martin County has failed to establish that such compatibility does not exist. In the Redraft of Order Permitting Change of Plan of Reclamation and Change of Name dated November 4, 1969, the Honorable C. Pfeiffer Trowbridge, Circuit Court Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Martin County, observes that the Petitioner in that case (herein Pal-Mar) "permanently and irrevocably withdrew its application to drain into the St. Lucie canal thereby removing all reasons for objections" to the proceedings in Circuit Court. However, there is no evidence to indicate that there exists a prohibition against drainage into the St. Lucie canal or that Judge Trowbridge's order is intended to preclude approval of Pal-Mar's present application.
The Issue The issue is whether the applicant for an Environmental Resource Permit ("ERP"), the City of Deltona ("City" or "Applicant"), has provided reasonable assurance that the system proposed complies with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the St. Johns River Water Management District's ("District") ERP regulations set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-4, and the Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (2005).
Findings Of Fact The District is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The City of Deltona is a municipal government established under the provisions of Chapter 165, Florida Statutes. The Lake Theresa Basin is comprised primarily of a system of interconnected lakes extending from Lake Macy in the City of Lake Helen to the Butler Chain of Lakes (Lake Butler and Lake Doyle). The Lake Theresa Basin is land-locked and does not have a natural outfall to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. In 2003, after an extended period of above-normal rainfall in the Deltona area, the lakes within the land-locked Lake Theresa Basin staged to extremely high elevations that resulted in standing water in residential yards, and rendered some septic systems inoperable. Lake levels within the Lake Theresa Basin continued to rise and were in danger of rising above the finished floor elevations of some residences within the basin. On March 25, 2003, the District issued an Emergency Order (F.O.R. No. 2003-38) authorizing the construction and short-term operation of the Lake Doyle and Lake Bethel Emergency Overflow Interconnection. Since wetland and surface water impacts would occur, the Emergency Order required the City of Deltona to obtain an ERP for the system. The project area is 4.1 acres, and the system consists of a variable water structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle connected to a series of pipes, swales, water control structures, and wetland systems which outfall to a finger canal of Lake Bethel, with ultimate discharge to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. The first segment of the system extends downstream from the weir structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle via a pipe entrenched in the upland berm of the Sheryl Drive right-of-way. The pipe passes under Doyle Road and through xeric pine-oak uplands to the northeast shore of a large (approximately 15 acres) deepwater marsh. Water flows south through the deepwater marsh where it outfalls through four pipes at Ledford Drive. Two of the four pipes are overflow structures, controlled by canal gates. The pipes at Ledford Drive discharge into a ditch and into a large (greater than 20 acres) shallow bay swamp. The south end of the bay swamp is defined (and somewhat impounded) by a 19th Century railroad grade. Water flows through the bay swamp where it outfalls through five pipes at the railroad grade. Three of the five pipes are overflow structures, controlled by channel boards. The pipes at the railroad grade discharge to a 1500-foot long finger canal that was dug some time during the period 1940-1972 from the north central shore of Lake Bethel. The overflow interconnection system has three locations whereby the system can be shut down: 1) Lake Doyle--a control weir, controlled by three sluice gates; 2) Ledford Drive--two thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by canal gates; and 3) railroad grade--three thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by channel boards (collectively referred to as "Overflow Structures"). The Overflow Structures are designed to carry the discharge of water from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. With the Overflow Structures closed the system returns to pre-construction characteristics, meaning there will be no increase or decrease in the quantity or quality of water throughout the path of the system as a result of the project. An unequivocal condition of the permit is that the system would operate with all of the Overflow Structures closed. As an added assurance, the City proposes to place a brick and mortar plug in the Lake Doyle weir structure outfall pipe to prevent any discharge from the weir. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the water level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. The District shall require a separate permit application to be submitted for such future plans. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, has lived on Lake Theresa for 19 years. Ms. Ash lives upstream from the area of the weir that will be plugged in accordance with the ERP. She does not trust either the City of Deltona to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP applied for by the City. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, also served as the qualified representative for Petitioners, Francell Frei, Bernard J. and Virginia Patterson, and Ted and Carol Sullivan. Ms. Ash represented that Ms. Frei has lived on Lake Theresa for 12 years, and both the Pattersons and the Sullivans live on Lake Louise, which is within the area of concern in this proceeding. Petitioner, Diana Bauer, has lived on Lake Theresa since February 2004. She fears that the lake will become too dry if the system is allowed to flow. She also believes the wildlife will be adversely affected if the water levels are too low since many species need a swampy or wet environment to thrive. She fears her property value will decrease as a result of the approval of the ERP. She also does not trust either the City to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioner, Howard Ehmer, lives two to three hundred yards down Lake Theresa from Ms. Bauer. He is concerned about the lake bed being too dry and attracting people on all terrain vehicles who enjoy driving around the lake bottom. He is concerned about his property value decreasing if the lake bed is dry. Further, when the lake level is too low, people cannot enjoy water skiing, boating, and fishing on Lake Theresa. Petitioner, Phillip Lott, a Florida native, has also owned and lived on property abutting Lake Theresa since 1995. Mr. Lott has a Ph.D. in plant ecology, and M.P.A. in coastal zone studies, an M.B.A. in international business, and a B.S. in environmental resource management and planning. Mr. Lott has been well acquainted with the water levels on Lake Theresa for many years. Based upon his personal observations of the lake systems in the Deltona area over the years, Mr. Lott has seen levels fluctuate greatly based upon periods of heavy and light rainfall. Mr. Lott is concerned that the District will permit the City to open the weir to let water flow through the system and cause flooding in some areas and low water levels in other areas. He fears that the District will allow the water to flow and upset the environmental balance, but he admits that this ERP application is for a closed system that will not allow the water to flow as he fears. Mr. Lott similarly does not trust the City to comply with and the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioners, James E. and Alicia M. Peake, who were represented by Steven L. Spratt at hearing as their qualified representative, live on Lake Louise, which is interconnected with the Lake Theresa basin. The Peakes are concerned that if the level of Lake Louise drops below 21 feet, nine inches, they will not be able to use the boat launch ramps on the lake. Petitioner, Steven L. Spratt, also lives on Lake Louise, and is concerned about the water levels becoming so low that he cannot use the boat launch on the lake. He has lived on the lake since 2000, and remembers when the water level was extremely low. He fears that approval of the ERP in this case will result in low levels of water once again. Petitioner, Gloria Benoit, has live on Lake Theresa for two years. She also enjoys watching recreational activities on the lake, and feels that approval of the ERP will devalue her lakefront property. Ms. Benoit appeared at the first day of the hearing, but offered no testimony on her behalf. J. Christy Wilson, Esquire, appeared prior to the final hearing as counsel of record for Petitioners, Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow. Neither Ms. Wilson nor any of the three Petitioners she represented appeared at any time during the hearing, filed any pleadings seeking to excuse themselves from appearing at the final hearing, or offered any evidence, testimony, pre- or post- hearing submittals. Petitioner, Gary Jensen, did not appear at hearing, did not file any pleadings or papers seeking to be excused from appearing at the final hearing, and did not offer any evidence, testimony, pre- or post-hearing submittals. Both the City and the District recognize that areas downstream from the project site, such as Stone Island and Sanford, have experienced flooding in the past in time of high amounts of rainfall. The system proposed by the City for this ERP will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. So long as the overflow structures are closed, the system will mimic pre-construction flow patterns, with no increase in volume flowing downstream. The District has considered the environment in its proposed approval of the ERP. The area abutting the project is little urbanized and provides good aquatic and emergent marsh habitat. With the exception of the western shore area of the deepwater marsh ("west marsh area"), the bay swamp and remaining deepwater marsh area have good ecological value. In the 1940's, the west marsh area was incorporated into the drainage system of a poultry farm that occupied the site. This area apparently suffered increased nutrient influxes and sedimentation that contributed to a proliferation of floating mats of aquatic plants and organic debris. These tussocks reduced the deepwater marsh's open water and diminished the historical marsh habitat. Water under the tussocks is typically anoxic owing to total shading by tussocks and reduced water circulation. Thick, soft, anaerobic muck has accumulated under the matted vegetation. Exotic shrubs (primrose willow Ludwigia peruvania) and other plants (cattails Typha spp.) dominate the tussocks. The construction of the project, from the 2003 Emergency Order, resulted in adverse impacts to 1.3 acres of wetlands having moderately high- to high ecological value and 0.2 acres of other surface waters. The 0.2 acre impact to other surface waters was to the lake bottom and the shoreline of Lake Doyle where the weir structure was installed. The 0.3 acres of wetland impacts occurred at the upper end of the deepwater marsh where the pipe was installed. The largest wetland impact (1.0 acre) was to the bay swamp. The bay swamp is a shallow body dominated by low hummocks and pools connected inefficiently by shallow braided channels and one acre is filled with a 1-2 foot layer of sediment following swamp channelization. Disturbance plants (e.g., primrose willow, Ludwigia peruvania, and elderberry Sambucus Canadensis) now colonize the sediment plume. Pursuant to the District's elimination and reduction criteria, the applicant must implement practicable design modifications, which would reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. A proposed modification, which is not technically capable of being done, is not economically viable, or which adversely affects public safety through endangerment of lives or property is not considered "practicable." The City reduced and/or eliminated the impacts to the lake bottom and shoreline of Lake Doyle and deepwater marsh, to the extent practicable. The impacts were the minimum necessary to install the weir structure and pipe for the system; the weir structure and pipe were carefully installed on the edges of the wetland and surface water systems, resulting in a minimum amount of grading and disturbance. To compensate for the loss of 1.3 acres of wetlands and 0.2 acres of other surface waters, the City proposes to preserve a total of 27.5 acres of wetlands, bay swamp, marsh, and contiguous uplands. Included in this 27.5 acres are 6.4 acres of the west marsh, which are to be restored. The parties stipulated that the mitigation plan would adequately compensate for losses of ecological function (e.g. wildlife habitat and biodiversity, etc.) resulting from the project. Water quality is a concern for the District. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. Water quality data for Lake Monroe indicate the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Prior to construction of the project, there was no natural outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe and therefore no contribution from this basin to nitrogen and phosphorous loadings to Lake Monroe. Lake Colby, Three Island Lakes (a/k/a Lake Sixma), and the Savannah are surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin for which minimum levels have been adopted pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-8. The system will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel, resulting in no outfall from the Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. Minimum flows established for surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin will not be adversely impacted. Under the first part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonable expected use of the project will not adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or surface waters. The system is designed as a low intensity project. As proposed, little activity and maintenance are expected in the project site area. The reasonably expected use of the system will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of the wetlands and other surface waters. None of the wetland areas adjacent to uplands are used by listed species for nesting or denning. In its pre-construction state, the project area did not cause or contribute to state water quality violations. Under the second part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of the system will not adversely affect the ecological value of the uplands to aquatic or wetland dependent species for enabling existing nesting or denning by these species. There are no listed threatened or endangered species within the project site area. Under the third part of the secondary impact test, and as part of the public interest test, the District must consider any other relevant activities that are closely linked and causally related to any proposed dredging or filling which will cause impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources. When making this determination, the District is required, by rule, to consult with the Division of Historical Resources. The Division of Historical Resources indicated that no historical or archaeological resources are likely present on the site. No impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources are expected. Under the fourth part of the secondary impact test, the City must demonstrate that certain additional activities and future phases of a project will not result in adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or water quality violations. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. Based upon the plans and calculations submitted, the proposed future phase, without additional measures, could result in minor increases in the loadings of nitrogen and phosphorous to Lake Monroe. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies due to water quality data indicating the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous, and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Under this potential future phase, there would be an outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. To address the impact on water quality of this potential future phase, the City has submitted a loading reduction plan for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. The plan includes compensating treatment to fully offset the potential increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Specifically, the loading reduction plan includes: Construction and operation of compensating treatment systems to fully offset anticipated increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Weekly water quality monitoring of the discharge from Lake Doyle for total phosphorous and total nitrogen. A requirement that the overflow structure be closed if the total phosphorous level reaches 0.18 mg/l or higher or the total nitrogen level reaches 1.2 mg/l or higher in any given week and will remain closed until levels fall below those limits. The implementation of these water quality mitigation measures will result in a net improvement of the water quality in Lake Monroe for nitrogen, phosphorous, or dissolved oxygen. The future phase was conceptually evaluated by the District for impacts to wetland functions. The future phase as proposed could result in adverse impacts to wetland functions. Operation of the system with the overflow structures open could impact the bay swamp and deepwater marsh. The City has demonstrated that any adverse impacts could be offset through mitigation. Based upon the information provided by the City and general engineering principles, the system is capable of functioning as proposed. The City of Deltona will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface waster management system. A local government is an acceptable operation and maintenance entity under District rules. The public interest test has seven criteria. The public interest test requires the District to evaluate only those parts of the project actually located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands, to determine whether a factor is positive, neutral, or negative, and then to balance these factors against each other. The seven factors are as follows: the public health, safety, or welfare of others; conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats; fishing, recreational value, and marine productivity; temporary or permanent nature; 5) navigation, water flow, erosion, and shoaling; 6) the current condition and relative value of functions; and 7) historical and archaeological resources. There are no identified environmental hazards or improvements to public health and safety. The District does not consider impacts to property values. To offset any adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats, the City has proposed mitigation. The areas of the project in, on, or over wetlands do not provide recreational opportunities. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will be permanent in nature. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will not cause shoaling, and does not provide navigational opportunities. The mitigation will offset the relative value of functions performed by areas affected by the proposed project. No historical or archaeological resources are likely on the site of the project. The mitigation of the project is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts. The project is not expected to cause unacceptable cumulative impacts.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the City of Deltona's application for an environmental resource permit with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report, and dismissing the Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Gary Jensen in Case No. 04-2405, and by Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow in Case No. 04-3048. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: George Trovato, Esquire City of Deltona 2345 Providence Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725 Diana E. Bauer 1324 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Barbara Ash, Qualified Representative 943 South Dean Circle Deltona, Florida 32738-6801 Phillip Lott 948 North Watt Circle Deltona, Florida Howard Ehmer Nina Ehmer 32738-7919 1081 Anza Court Deltona, Florida 32738 Francell Frei 1080 Peak Circle Deltona, Florida 32738 Bernard T. Patterson Virginia T. Patterson 2518 Sheffield Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kealey A. West, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 J. Christy Wilson, Esquire Wilson, Garber & Small, P.A. 437 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Gloria Benoit 1300 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Gary Jensen 1298 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 James E. Peake Alicia M. Peake 2442 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Steven L. Spratt 2492 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Ted Sullivan 1489 Timbercrest Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kirby Green, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent, Gables Engineering, is required to obtain a surface water management permit for its property known as the G-Bar-E Ranch in Okeechobee County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying and documentary evidence received, the following relevant facts are found: The South Florida Water Management District (District) is a public corporation of the State of Florida existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code as a multipurpose water management district with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. Cables Engineering, Inc., owns property known as the G- Bar-E Ranch which is located in Okeechobee County, Florida. The property is located at the confluence of Otter Creek and Taylor Creek. Otter Creek flows into Taylor Creek which flows offsite into Lake Okeechobee. On August 28, 1986, the District issued an Administrative Complaint and Order which ordered Gables to obtain a surface water management permit pursuant to Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes for the surface water management system on the G-Bar-E Ranch. Gables refused and requested an administrative hearing on the Complaint and Order. Don Dillard is a Vice President of Gables and has overall responsibility for operating the Ranch. He has been employed by Gables for nine years. Gables has in its employ a ranch manager who remains on site. Until recently, Gables operated the property as a cattle ranch. A portion of its herd was sold to a former ranch manager who also remains on site. Alvin Castro is a civil engineer employed by the District as an area engineer which includes the area of Okeechobee County. Mr. Castro conducted a site inspection on the G-Bar-E Ranch on January 6, 1987. The inspection documented that there are two pond systems on the subject property and eleven hydraulic connections from the subject property to Otter Creek and Taylor Creek. One pond system, identified as pond system No. 2, is located in the mid-western area of the ranch east of Taylor Creek. It consists of three main ponds which are interconnected in a chain with hydraulic control structures and outfall ditches. The ponds were at one time natural ponds but have been deepened and improved to provide a water source for cattle and to store and convey water. A water control structure is located at the western end of each of the three ponds. The structures are aligned and installed to convey water from the upstream ponds to the downstream ponds. The control structures are culvert riser type. A culvert is a man-made conduit that conveys water to a point and allows it to flow. A riser is a half-section of a culvert or pipe welded perpendicular to the outfall culvert. Its main function is to serve as a support structure for weirs or flashboards, which regulate the upstream stages in a ditch. It allows water, as its flows over the spillway or weir, to be collected and directed to the outfall pipe or culvert. Mr. Castro observed water flowing, at the time of inspection, through all three outfall ditches to the south and westward from the pond system to a hammock area. The ponds have been cleaned of vegetation and the culverts and risers have been maintained by Respondent. One culvert riser structure conveys water from Pond 1 to Pond 2 which consist of a 96-inch riser and a 60-inch culvert, approximately 50 to 60 feet long. At the time of the inspection, water was being discharged through the control structure to an outfall ditch that connects Pond 1 to Pond 2. The outfall ditch is a man-made ditch. A second control structure connects Pond 2 to Pond 3 and interconnecting ditches consisting of a 96-inch ditch riser with a 60-inch culvert in place to hydraulically connect Ponds 2 and 3. The control structure allows water to flow underneath a private road to Pond 3. Mr. Castro observed water flowing from Pond 2 to Pond 3 at the time of his inspection. In the absence of the culvert, the pond system would run together as a large pond. The culverts alter the natural water storage capacity and drainage arrangement on the G-Bar-E Ranch. The third controlled structure is located on the southwest end of Pond It consists of a 96-inch riser on a 60-inch culvert and a sheet pile weir. At the time of his inspection, Castro observed that there was flow of water from the control structure and Pond 3 through the outfall ditch to a hammock wetland area to the southwest. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 1-6). The other pond systems, identified as pond system 1, is located in the northern portion of the property near the east bank of Taylor Creek. It consists of three main ponds ranging in size of one to five acres. One pond is connected to an outfall ditch to the southwest through a twenty-four inch culvert which runs underneath an existing grass road. At the time of Mr. Castro's inspection, it was conveying water from the pond westward into a vegetated area. The other two ponds are connected to each other via a 12-inch culvert underneath an existing grass road. The ditch is about three to five feet wide. At the time of Mr. Castro's inspection, there was flow of water between the two ponds. The downstream pond has an open connection (no control structure) to a ditch, which ultimately discharges to Taylor Creek. At the time of the inspection, water flow was observed (by Castro) in the ditch and was being discharged from pond 6 to Taylor Creek. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 11-14) The ditches in the pond system are prismatic; fairly uniform in cross section top width, depth and bottom width, with a straight alignment which indicates that they are man-made. The pond system is well-maintained by Respondent and free of vegetation. (TR, 21). There are four ditch structural connections from the G- Bar-E Ranch to Otter Creek. The easternmost structure consists of a 24-inch riser with a 15- inch culvert. It serves to convey stormwater from an upstream ditch system on the G-Bar-E property to Otter Creek and thereafter, offsite. There was flow to the structure to Otter Creek at the time of Mr. Castro's inspection. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photo 7). The second structure is located westward from the first. It consists of a 20-inch riser and a 13-inch culvert. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photo 8). The third structure is located westward from the second. It consists of a 32-inch riser and a 16-inch culvert. Discharge of water from the G-Bar-E property to Otter Creek through the third structure was observed by Mr. Castro during his inspection. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photo 9). The fourth structure is located westward from the third, consisting of a 36-inch riser and a 24-inch culvert. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photo 10). There are several manmade hydraulic connections to Taylor Creek on the G-Bar-E Ranch. On the eastbank of the Creek, the northernmost, identified as Ditch A, is a straight channel. At the time of Mr. Castro's inspection, it was discharging water from the G-Bar-E property to Taylor Creek by means of a 36- inch riser and a 30-inch culvert. The discharge served to drain the G-Bar-E property. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 15-16). The next ditch south is a prismatic channel with a straight alignment and uniform cross section, connected to Taylor Creek by a 46-inch riser and a 36-inch culvert. At the time of Mr. Castro's inspection, it was discharging water from the G-Bar E property to Taylor Creek. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 19-22). The headwaters of the ditch is a hammock wetland area at its upstream reach. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 19-22). The next ditch south is connected to Taylor Creek via a hydraulic control structure consisting of a 42-inch riser and a 30-inch culvert. The structure has at least one flashboard, which is a temporary barrier affixed to the slots on the riser and used to hold and regulate upstream water levels and to increase or decrease the storage capacity. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 24-25) The ditch drains a hammock area in the interior of the G-Bar-E property which lies to the northeast. It controls water from the upper end of the G-Bar-E property. On the westbank of Taylor Creek, the northernmost connection is an open connection to Taylor Creek. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, sheet 1; Petitioner's Exhibit 2, photo 17). South of that connection is another ditch with an open connection to Taylor Creek. To the South is another open channel connection to Taylor Creek which has a non-functional control structure at the downstream end. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photo 23). The existing system of ponds and ditches on the G-Bar-E Ranch will collect, convey and can regulate upstream storage and flow rates to Taylor Creek and Otter Creek. In 1963 Gables conveyed to Okeechobee County a permanent easement along Taylor Creek. The Taylor Creek easement runs through the G-Bar-E property, roughly from the northeast corner to the southeasternmost corner. The easement to Okeechobee County covers about 150 feet on each side of Taylor Creek through the property. The purpose of the easement, as stated on the face of the document, is for the construction necessary to improve the Taylor Creek channel including widening, deepening, straightening, spoil placement and spoil disposition, installation of drip and pipe drop spillways; for operation and maintenance of the channel; and for the flowage of water through the channel, spillways, and pipe drop spillways. The grantor (Gables) reserved the right to use the easement land at any time, in any manner and for any purpose not inconsistent with the full use and enjoyment thereof by Okeechobee County. A small portion of the ditches on the G-Bar-E Ranch which connect to Taylor Creek and the control structures in those ditches lie within the area covered by the easement granted to Okeechobee County (approximately 150 feet). However, the major portion of the ditches all lie outside the easement granted to Okeechobee County. (TR 63-64; Respondent's Exhibit 4). The ditches serve to drain the G-Bar-E property into Taylor Creek and benefit the G-Bar-E Ranch property. This use is consistent with and permitted by the county's easement. The ditches and structures serve the purpose of draining the property and facilitating the flow of water to Taylor Creek. Mr. Dillard testified that Gables Engineering has not constructed, repaired or maintained any of the ditches during his nine year tenure with the company. (TR 67). However, no evidence was presented to indicate that the ditches or structures were constructed by Okeechobee County pursuant to the easement or that they benefit Okeechobee County rather than Respondent. In 1966 and 1967, Respondent granted to Okeechobee County a permanent easement along Otter Creek and Bimeny canal, which run roughly from east to west near the northern boundary of the property. The easement is for construction necessary to improve Otter and Bimeny Creek including widening, deepening, straightening, spoil placement and disposition, installation of drop and pipe drop spillways; for operation and maintenance of the channel and the flow of water to the channel, spillways and pipe drop spillways. Gables Engineering, Inc. reserved the right to install pipe drop inlets, retain, impound and regulate the flow of water into Otter Creek and Bimeny Canal lying within the Grantor's land, provided they are installed in conformance with sound engineering practice. Respondent reserved the right to use the easement property at any time and for any purpose not inconsistent with its use by Okeechobee County. (Respondent's Exhibit 2). Four control structures lie within the easement area along Otter Creek and Bimeny Canal. A small portion of the ditches from the G-Bar-E Ranch property leading to the control structure lie within the easement area. There is no record evidence to establish that the control structure, which facilitates the flow of water to Otter Creek and Bimeny Canal, is maintained by Okeechobee County or in any way serve the purposes of the easement to Okeechobee County. It is unclear who actually constructed the structures. The structures serve to convey water from the G-Bar-E property to Otter Creek. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 7 and 9). This appears consistent with and expressly permitted by the easement granted to Okeechobee County. In 1964 Gables Engineering granted Okeechobee County a bridge and access road easement which consists of an existing graded road forty feet in width running from State Road 15 to the west boundary of Taylor Creek. The easement is for purposes in conjunction with the construction, maintenance and operation of an access road and bridge across Taylor Creek. The access road and bridge across Taylor Creek do not presently exist. The road easement crosses over a culvert between two of the ponds in pond system 2. However the pond system itself, including the outfall structure and ditch at the western end of the system, lie outside the easement. The easement also crosses a culvert in pond system 1, but the remainder of the pond system lie outside the easement. (TR 63-64). The ponds, control structures and ditches on the G-Bar- E Ranch serve to drain the property internally and to Otter Creek and Taylor Creek. One pond system drains water into a hammock area to the southwest. This system consist of three ponds with control structures between each pond and an outfall ditch at the southwestern end of the system. The other pond system drains water to wetland areas and to Taylor Creek. It consists of three ponds, control structures and outfall ditches to a wetland area and to a ditch leading to Taylor Creek. While Respondent maintains that the culverts were installed for the purpose of allowing vehicular access between the southern and northern areas of the Ranch, the credible evidence reveals that the control structures primary purpose is to drain the property and control the flow of water throughout the system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, Gables Engineering, to file an application to obtain a surface water management permit to operate works on the G Bar-E Ranch pursuant to Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes and that an initial application be submitted to obtain a surface water management permit within 30 days of the entry of the Final Order in this case. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 18th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Sarah Nall, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Robert W. Stewart, Esquire Corrigan, Zelman & Bander, P.A. Rivergate Plaza, Suite 200 444 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-7.523(2)(c) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.*
Findings Of Fact The Parties 1. The District is a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida (1949), and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E-7, Florida Administrative Code, asa multipurpose water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. 2. KRVSA is a Florida corporation whose members are substantially affected by the rule in question. 3. Phillip B. Griner is an individual who holds a Special Use License to use the Lower Reedy Creek Management Area/Rough Island Management Unit Protected Zone. He has been a member of KVSA since its inception in 1998 and was serving on its board of directors at the time of the final hearing.
Conclusions Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Petition for Administrative Hearing is denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Pan ate J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 2003.
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of appeal with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. 31
The Issue Whether the Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District's applications for construction of wastewater collection and transmission systems, specifically, Permit Numbers CS50-298013, CS50-301197, and CS50-305990, should be granted by the Palm Beach County Health Department.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Palm Beach County Health Department (Health Department) was delegated the authority by the Department of Environmental Protection to review applications and issue permits for wastewater collection and transmission systems pursuant to the Specific Operating Agreement for Delegation of Wastewater Program Authority From the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The argument specifically referenced Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the successor to Title 17, Florida Administrative Code, which is Title 62. Respondent, Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District (ENCON), is a water control district. Petitioner, Village of Tequesta (Tequesta), is a municipal corporation. Petitioner Bermuda Terrace & Pinetree Drive Concerned Citizens (Concerned Citizens) is a coalition of homeowners of record owning property in Bermuda Terrace and on Pinetree Drive. On December 17, 1996, the Health Department issued Permit No. CS50-298013 to ENCON for installation of sewers in Bermuda Terrace and Pinetree Drive. On March 27, 1997, the Health Department issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Permit No. CS50-301197 to ENCON for the construction of sewers in Country Club Point and Anchorage Point. On June 24, 1997, the Health Department issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Permit No. CS50-305990 to ENCON for the construction of sewers in Tequesta Country Club. Currently the wastewater in the areas for which the sewers are proposed to be installed flows into septic tank systems. There are 835 homes on the Tequesta Peninsula that would be hooking up to the proposed sewer system. The Health Department created a review form for internal use in reviewing applications for sewage collection permits. The Sewage Collection Checklist contains the statutory and administrative rule requirements for permitting sewage collection and transmission systems. The applications submitted by ENCON were reviewed using the review form. All three applications met the criteria contained in the applicable statutes and rules. 11. Robert Mitchell, who supervises the permitting for wastewater collection systems for the Health Department, opined that the permit applications provided reasonable assurances that the construction and operation of the sewage system would not discharge, emit, or cause pollution. A sewage collection system does not emit or discharge pollution and, if constructed and functioning according to the technical requirements of the administrative rules, does not cause pollution. Thus, the applications compliance with the technical compliance with Rules 62-604.400 and 62-604.300, Florida Administrative Code, is reasonable assurance that the proposed systems will not cause pollution. 12 The proposed permits contain the following specific condition: Prior to construction, all required permits or approvals must be obtained for all aspects of the project from the appropriate agencies. Any dewatering required by the construction of the wastewater collection/transmission system will have to meet the permitting criteria for that particular activity, which comes under the jurisdiction of the South Florida Water Management District and not the Health Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Permit Nos. CS50-301197, CS50-305990, and CS50-298013 to ENCON for construction of sewer systems. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 306 SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 17th day of April, 1998. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Victoria Coleman, Esquire District 9 Legal Office Department of Health Post Office Box 29 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Scott G. Hawkins, Esquire Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. 505 South Flagler Drive Post Office Box 3475 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 Timothy W. Gaskill, Esquire Curtis L. Shenkman, Esquire DeSantis, Gaskill, Smith & Shenkman, P.A. 11891 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408
The Issue Whether Environmental Resource Permit No. IND-073-288406-1 (the “Permit”) should be issued as proposed in the notice issued by Respondent Northwest Florida Water Management District (the “District”).
Findings Of Fact Parties Palafox is a Florida limited liability company and is the applicant for the Permit. Palafox owns Lot 1, Block B, of the Palafox Preserve Subdivision, the six-acre property on which the Project is proposed for development. Palafox is the sole member of the Palafox Preserve Commercial Property Owners Association. The District is a Florida water management district having the duty and authority to regulate Florida’s water resources within its jurisdiction and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Part IV, and Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated and authorized thereunder in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-330. Petitioner, Carmen Diaz, is the owner of Lot 18, Block A, of the Palafox Preserve Subdivision, which is west of the Project and separated from the Project by a conservation easement owned by the Palafox Preserve Homeowners’ Association (the “HOA”). The Project The Project is a 36-unit multi-family residential development proposed on approximately 2.68 acres of Lot 1, Block B, of the Palafox Preserve Subdivision. The Project is adjacent to, and immediately west of, Martin Hurst Road, and adjacent to, and immediately south of, Palafox Lane. The remainder of Palafox’s Lot 1, Block B, property runs to the west of the Project and south of Palafox Lane, and is located within a larger perpetual conservation easement (the “conservation easement”). Petitioner’s property is a residential lot located west of, and not adjacent to, Palafox’s property. A portion of Petitioner’s property is located within the conservation easement. Between Petitioner’s property and Palafox’s property is a portion of the conservation easement owned by the HOA. The conservation easement covers approximately nine acres, approximately seven of which is wetlands. The conservation easement straddles the boundary between Block A and Block B, with about two-thirds in Block A, owned, for the most part, by the HOA; and one-third in Block B, wholly owned by Palafox. Palafox’s property, Petitioner’s property, and the conservation easement are all located within the same closed basin. This means that stormwater within the basin will be maintained within the basin in all storm events up to and including a 100-year, 24-hour storm. Existing Palafox Preserve Subdivision stormwater management facilities (“SWMF”) Nos. 6 and 7 are constructed in platted drainage easements on Lots 11 through 19 in Block A. SWMFs Nos. 6 and 7 are constructed in a horseshoe shape adjacent to the conservation easement and are designed as detention facilities. Stormwater above the detention volume is discharged to the conservation easement wetlands. The SWMF to be authorized by the Permit, SWMFs Nos. 6 and 7, and the conservation easement containing the wetlands, are within the localized closed basin. There is another SWMF to the west behind the homesites located on Lots 1 through 7 that is numbered SWMF No. 5. SWMF No. 5 is not within the localized closed basin, and discharges to the Lake Jackson drainage basin. The closed basin also contains an emergency “pop-off” or outfall which allows for water from the wetlands to be discharged to the west if it reaches a certain elevation, which, based on the plans, is 223.57 feet. The outfall was designed to mimic pre-development conditions and only discharges if the 100- year, 24-hour storm is exceeded. If discharged, the water would travel west, through drainage easements to SWMF No. 5, and ultimately to Lake Jackson. The record does not support a finding that waters in the closed basin have ever risen high enough to trigger the pop-off. The only record evidence showed that Tallahassee has never recorded a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Petitioner’s Challenges Petitioner maintains the Project will cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; adverse flooding to on-site and off-site property; adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; and adversely impact the value and functions provided to fish, wildlife, and listed species, by wetlands and other surface waters, contrary to the governing administrative rules. Further, Petitioner alleges the permit is contrary to state requirements that the permittee own or control the property to which stormwater is discharged, and that the wetland must be properly delineated as a state jurisdictional wetland. Palafox’s Environmental Resource Permit Application and Modeling Report Palafox submitted its Permit application to the District on August 6, 2019. In support of its application, Palafox submitted, among other things, project drawings, background materials, and a stormwater modeling report, prepared by Blackhawk Engineering, Inc. (“Blackhawk”). The Permit application seeks approval of a SWMF that will consist of a dry detention with filtration stormwater pond that is to be constructed in the northeast corner of the Project site. The design calls for a side-bank sand filter with a minimum of two-feet of sand, which filters impurities out of the water as it flows through it. The filtered water then travels through two perforated pipes within the side bank filter that sit below the pond and discharge from a concrete retaining wall onto Palafox’s property. The sand filter controls the rate of discharge from the pipes. The stormwater pond proposed here is a common pond design in this area of the state. The pond is also designed with a 10-foot concrete overflow weir set at an elevation of 228.5 feet. If water rises to this level, it will also discharge through the weir onto Palafox’s property. For stormwater ponds utilizing detention with filtration, the District’s ERP rules require the pond to be able to treat at least one inch of runoff for the drainage area. This is known as the treatment volume. For this property, the treatment volume is 12,716.33 cubic feet of water. The Project was designed to meet Leon County’s more restrictive requirement to treat at least 1.125 inches of runoff from the drainage area. Consequently, the pond has more treatment volume than required by ERP rules, and will hold and treat over 14,000 cubic feet of water under the weir under that runoff scenario. That water can be recovered in 15.84 hours. The ERP criteria requires recovery in less than 36 hours. As part of the application, Palafox submitted a stormwater modeling report prepared by Blackhawk. The report documents the results from a numerical model that represents the amount of runoff in a basin. The modeling program used was Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing (“ICPR”). ICPR is a widely accepted modeling system within both the stormwater engineering profession and the regulatory community. The model calculates the amount of runoff generated by a storm event, then simulates the stormwater management process, including detention of the stormwater within the designed facility, as well as calculating the rate and amount of discharge through pipes and weirs. For the Project, the model compared the pre-development and post- development conditions of the closed basin in storm conditions up to and including a 100-year, 24-hour storm scenario.1 That comparison shows an increase in discharge of 9,630 cubic feet of water from Lot 1B in a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The result is an increase of 0.384 inches in the water elevation in the wetlands from pre-development to post-development conditions. Water Quantity and Flooding Impacts Petitioner alleges the Project will create a flood risk because it will replace an existing stormwater retention facility on Lot 1B, that does not discharge into the wetlands, with a detention facility that does. Petitioner maintains that the additional discharge will significantly increase the amount of water flowing into the wetlands and damage her property, as well as the wetland’s value. The existing pond, however, was designed to retain only the additional runoff from Lot 1B generated by construction of the subdivision entrance road, Palafox Lane. The existing pond does not serve the residential portion of the subdivision. Runoff that flowed into the wetlands before construction of the road (i.e., in pre-development conditions) is not retained in the existing pond. The ICPR addresses the effect of replacing the existing pond by comparing pre-development conditions with post-development conditions to document the performance of the new pond. As already noted, the increase in wetland water elevation is negligible. Any rise would be contained within the existing conservation easement. In support of her claims, Petitioner introduced the testimony of Andrew Carswell, who was accepted as an expert in stormwater management. Mr. Carswell testified, that, based on his calculations, the 1 The 100-year, 24-hour storm scenario is Leon County’s standard for environmental permitting. Project would contribute 505,000 cubic feet of water to the wetland over a period of one year. In Mr. Carswell’s opinion, the wetland would be overwhelmed, causing the basin to overflow in the direction of the lowest elevation—Lot 18, owned by Petitioner, and the adjacent Lot 19. Mr. Carswell explained that the topography of Lots 18 and 19 is very steep, which would cause stormwater to travel faster, scouring and eroding the subject properties. However, Mr. Carswell did not model the stormwater system, or otherwise perform a simulation to determine staging of particular storm events in the basin. Mr. Carswell performed a simple water balance calculation, utilizing average annual rainfall amounts and evapotranspiration rates he found online for Tallahassee. His testimony was unclear whether the calculation included any percolation rate for the wetland area itself. Based on his calculation, Mr. Carswell concluded the basin would collect ten inches of water a year, with none of that water ever leaving the closed basin. Under Mr. Carswell’s analysis, the basin would fill up quickly. Mr. Carswell admitted, however, that if he wanted to actually predict the incremental contribution of a stormwater discharge from a project into a closed basin, he would utilize a model similar to the one submitted by Palafox in support of this Project. He has never used only his water balance calculation in support of a stormwater pond in a permitting context. Palafox introduced the testimony of Mark Thomasson, its environmental consultant on the Project, who also assisted the project engineer in developing the Permit application. Mr. Thomasson was accepted as an expert in stormwater engineering and ERP permitting. In Mr. Thomasson’s opinion, Mr. Carswell’s calculation is not a reliable way to determine whether the Project will create a flood risk in the subdivision. He opined that the water balance calculation is too simplistic— simply adding an entire year’s worth of rainfall into a closed basin. It is a method of approximating average runoff rates, atypical in the regulatory flood setting. As Mr. Thomasson explained, a stormwater engineer can use simple math for the initial abstraction—how much rainfall the ground will soak up before it will runoff—but must rely upon a continuous simulation model, such as the ICPR, for calculating stormwater behavior after initial rainfall and absorption. Next, Petitioner introduced evidence aimed at undermining Palafox’s stormwater modeling in support of the Project. Mr. Carswell testified that, when modeling in a closed basin, the seasonal high-water mark must be used as the starting water elevation, and that Palafox erred in not doing so. However, Mr. Carswell admitted that not all closed basin analyses he has performed used the seasonal high-water mark. Mr. Thomasson made clear that consideration of the high-water mark is not necessary when analyzing a pre-versus-post condition in a closed basin, because the relevant standard is the delta—the difference in surface water elevation. Mr. Thomasson further explained that starting with the lower elevation is the more conservative approach because a closed basin is like a bowl, narrower at the bottom, so adding water at a lower elevation will actually lead to a higher delta. Mr. Thomasson’s testimony was more credible and reliable than Mr. Carswell’s on the issue of the professionally-acceptable method for determining whether the Project meets the standards for an ERP. As to Petitioner’s concern with adverse flooding of her property, the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner’s house is at an elevation over 224 feet—nearly two feet above the 100-year high water elevation established by the Poole Engineering report that shows where such a storm would rise to in the basin. That 224-foot elevation is also higher than the emergency pop- off, which is at 223.57 feet. As previously noted, there was no evidence that water has ever risen that high in the closed basin, or that Tallahassee has recorded a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Furthermore, Mr. Carswell’s opinion that the Project would result in flooding of Lots 18 and 19 assumed conditions in which the emergency pop-off drain was clogged, or otherwise ceasing to function properly. Petitioner’s property currently contains a designed stormwater pond that connects by way of a drainage easement in her backyard. Under current conditions, Petitioner can expect to see water standing in that pond after a sufficient rain event, before the water eventually filters and drains into the wetland. The evidence does not support a finding that the post-development condition would result in adverse flooding to Petitioner’s property. Wetlands and Environmental Impacts Petitioner maintains that Palafox does not have the legal right to discharge water onto Petitioner’s property. The evidence, however, showed that Palafox will be discharging onto its own property, albeit a narrow strip thereof. If there is a significant enough storm event, treated stormwater will make its way downhill and commingle with water in the shared wetlands. There was no evidence, however, that Palafox will discharge directly onto any other landowner’s property, or that any discharge from Palafox’s pond will directly impact Petitioner’s property, which also discharges into the wetlands. Assuming, arguendo, that the facility for which Palafox seeks permit approval did discharge directly into the wetland, Section 2.5 of Applicant’s Handbook, Volume II, would govern said discharge. That section specifically authorizes discharge of stormwater by an applicant to “waters of the state,” which includes wetlands. It also authorizes discharge of stormwater to multiple-owned properties. Water flowing off of the HOA’s property and Petitioner’s property is captured by the wetland as well. The wetland is owned in part by Palafox, in part by the HOA, and in part by Petitioner. The small portion of the wetland on Petitioner’s property is contained wholly within a conservation easement. However, the entire wetland is “waters of the state,” whether it is on Palafox’s property, the HOA’s property, or Petitioner’s property.2 The wetland is within a closed basin and the ICPR provided to the District by Palafox demonstrates that the wetland is capable of holding all of the discharge from the 100-year, 24-hour storm while increasing the water level in the wetland by only 0.384 inches. The District introduced the testimony of Andrew Joslyn, its agency representative, who was accepted as an expert in environmental permitting. He opined that, because the treated stormwater is discharged directly onto Palafox’s property and then flows to a wetland, which is both a water of the state and a multiple-owned property, no additional authorization is required by ERP rules to allow the treated stormwater to flow toward, and ultimately end up in, the wetland. Section 10.2.7 of Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I, addresses secondary, not direct, impacts to wetlands. It states that activities will not be considered adverse to wetlands if buffers, with a minimum width of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet, are provided abutting those wetlands that will remain under the permitted design. In August 2019, District staff performed a “ground truth” inspection on Palafox’s property prior to the District’s notice of intent to issue the Permit. The District verified, on site, the drawing of the 2001 wetland limits supplied by Palafox. During that ground truth inspection of the wetland, District staff, accompanied by Mr. Thomasson, made the determination that Palafox’s proposed upland development was outside of the wetland, there was no direct 2 ERP permitting rules developed under the authority of chapter 373 provide that “[t]erms used in [chapter 62-330] are defined in section 2.0 of Volume I and section 2.1 of Volume II” of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 330.021. The Applicant’s Handbook, section 2.0(a)116. establishes that “‘Waters of the state’ shall be as defined in Section 403.031(13), F.S.” Section 403.031(13) provides that “‘Waters’ include, but are not limited to, rivers, lakes, streams, springs, impoundments, wetlands, and all other waters or bodies of water, including fresh, brackish, saline, tidal, surface, or underground waters. Waters owned entirely by one person other than the state are included only in regard to possible discharge on other property or water.” impact to the wetland, and the development was an average distance of greater than 25 feet, and at no point was closer than 15 feet to the wetland. Based on those measurements, the District determined that the secondary impact rule was not at issue. Petitioner argues that the District’s determination is in error because Palafox relied upon a wetland delineation conducted in 2001, which has expired pursuant to statutory provisions. Petitioner argues that the wetland boundaries have expanded since the 2001 delineation, thus the “ground- truthed” determination of the boundary is insufficient to determine that the secondary impact rule does not apply. Mr. Joslyn testified that a formal delineation of a precise boundary of the wetland is not required to identify or classify an area as a “wetland” or “water of the state.” Wetlands are within the state’s jurisdiction regardless of whether the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or a water management district has formally delineated or asserted jurisdiction. Moreover, ERP evaluation and approval criteria does not necessarily require a buffer between upland development and a nearby wetland. The buffer is only required to avoid a secondary impact-to-wetland analysis or, stated differently, a secondary impact-to-wetland analysis is only required if the appropriate buffer between upland and wetland is not maintained. Although not required, in order to avoid a secondary impact analysis, the appropriate buffer is a minimum width of 15 feet and an average of 25 feet. In support of her claim that there was not a proper wetland buffer, Petitioner presented a transcript of testimony from Kevin Songer given in a different proceeding challenging Leon County’s approval of the environmental permit for the Palafox subdivision. Petitioner presented the former testimony to support her position that Mr. Songer’s 2001 wetland delineation line has moved to a new line as set by Mr. Songer in 2015. The 2015 wetland delineation line purported to show that the wetland had expanded somewhat. Mr. Songer’s 2015 wetland delineation work was neither checked by independent peer review nor confirmed by any state or local environmental regulatory agency.3 In addition, Mr. Songer provided no testimony that the Project would cause any adverse impacts to the wetlands. He noted that there had been changes to the wetlands between the two times he was on site, 2001 and 2015. He did not assess what, if any, impact—adverse or otherwise—the Project would have on the wetland, or whether such change had any material effect on the relevant ERP standards. His only relevant testimony was directed towards an alleged change to the wetland boundary. Nonetheless, Mr. Thomasson reviewed Mr. Songer’s testimony and a survey of Mr. Songer’s proposed 2015 wetland line. Mr. Thomasson prepared a document showing Mr. Songer’s proposed 2015 wetland line overlaid on the existing conditions plan (i.e. pre-development) of Palafox’s property. Mr. Thomasson also prepared a document showing Mr. Songer’s proposed 2015 wetland line overlaid on the proposed conditions plan (i.e. post- development) of Palafox’s property. In neither instance was there a distance less than 15 feet between Palafox’s proposed development and Mr. Songer’s proposed 2015 wetland line. In both instances, there was always an average distance greater than 25 feet between Palafox’s proposed development and Mr. Songer’s proposed 2015 wetland line. 3 Palafox urged the undersigned to find that Mr. Songer’s 2015 wetland delineation does not represent a recognized wetland jurisdictional line, based on Administrative Law Judge Francine Ffolkes’ finding in Braswell v. Palafox, Case No. 18-2734 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 31, 2018; Fla. Leon Cty. Sept. 24, 2018). The undersigned granted Palafox’s request for official recognition of the Recommended Order in that case, but official recognition cannot be used to admit hearsay statements in court files. See Dufor v. State, 69 So. 3d 235, 253 (Fla. 2011) (“[W]hile the court may take judicial notice of documents in a court file … this notice would not make the contents of the documents admissible if they … constituted hearsay.”). Further, “courts generally cannot take notice of findings of fact from other proceedings for the truth of the matter asserted therein because these finding are disputable and usually are disputed.” General Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F3d 1074, 1082 n.6 (7th Cir.1997). Whether Mr. Songer’s 2015 wetland delineation is a recognized jurisdictional wetland line is a matter in dispute in the instant proceeding. Accordingly, even if Mr. Songer’s 2015 proposed wetland line is used, Palafox has satisfied the buffer requirements found in Section 10.2.7 of Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I, and no secondary impact analysis is required. Other than Mr. Songer’s former testimony, Petitioner presented no evidence regarding adverse impacts on the wetlands. Petitioner’s one expert witness, Mr. Carswell, admitted he is not qualified to opine on whether the Project would have an adverse impact on the function of wetlands. Mr. Carswell did testify that the discharge of stormwater from the Applicant’s project would not affect fish and wildlife. Mr. Thomasson expressed the opinion that the Project will not result in any change, adverse or otherwise, to the function of the wetland.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Northwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of Environmental Resource Permit No. IND-073-288406-1 to Palafox, LLC, on the terms and conditions set forth in the District’s Notice of Final Agency Action. Jurisdiction is reserved to determine whether the District and Palafox are entitled to attorney’s fees and sanctions against Petitioner and her counsel under sections 120.595(1) and 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 18th day of May, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph B. Brannen, Esquire Pennington, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Drawer 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 (eServed) Matthew E.W. Bryant, Esquire Pennington, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Drawer 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 (eServed) Brian A. Newman, Esquire Pennington, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Jefferson M. Braswell, Esquire Braswell Law, PLLC 116 Northeast 3rd Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 (eServed) W. Douglas Hall, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) James E. Parker-Flynn, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Brett J. Cyphers, Executive Director Northwest Florida Water Management District 81 Water Management Drive Havana, Florida 32333-4712 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: An Overview of Petitioner's Employment with the District Petitioner was employed by the District from June of 1988, until his termination, which was effective January 14, 1992. Prior to his termination he had an unblemished disciplinary record. Petitioner was initially hired by the District as a Construction Representative. In January of 1989, he assumed the duties of a Regulatory Professional I. He was promoted in 1990 to a Regulatory Professional II, a position he held until he was terminated. At the time of his termination, Petitioner had attained regular employee status inasmuch as he had successfully completed his probationary period. As a Regulatory Professional II, Petitioner was responsible for monitoring the public's compliance with the District's regulatory programs, a task that involved the exercise of considerable discretion with minimal supervision as well as frequent and substantial contact with citizens in his assigned territory, which covered all of Okeechobee and St. Lucie Counties and parts of Glades and Highlands Counties. Petitioner also supervised one subordinate employee, Donald Hagan, a Regulatory Professional I, who assisted Petitioner in his monitoring activities. Petitioner was assigned a District vehicle for official use during the workday. After hours, the vehicle was secured in the parking lot outside the District field station in Okeechobee where Petitioner was headquartered. Petitioner worked an eight-hour day. His normal work hours were 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., however, he occasionally deviated from this schedule when necessary to accommodate his workload. In addition to a lunch break, Petitioner was allowed to take two 15 minute work breaks during his eight-hour workday, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. He was permitted to take these breaks whether he was in the field station or out in the field. In September and most of October of 1991, Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Edward Maciejko. Maciejko was headquartered in West Palm Beach, approximately 60 to 65 miles from the Okeechobee field station out of which Petitioner worked. On October 23, 1991, Alan Goldstein became Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Goldstein's work station was located in Okeechobee approximately three miles from Petitioner's work station. Goldstein remained Petitioner's immediate supervisor until Petitioner's termination. The Employee Handbook The District has an Employee Handbook that is designed to provide information and guidance to District employees regarding employment-related matters. As do all new District employees, Petitioner received a copy of the Employee Handbook upon being hired and its contents were reviewed with him during his orientation. The Employee Handbook contains the District's Attendance and Leave Policy (Policy No. 300), which addresses the subjects of "normal work hours" and "work breaks" as follows: NORMAL WORK HOURS All full-time regular and initial probationary employees shall perform their assigned duties for 40 hours each work week unless otherwise authorized. All part-time regular and temporary employees shall perform their assigned duties for the total number of hours for which compensation is received. The normal workday shall be 8 hours unless otherwise authorized by the employee's Division Director. WORK BREAKS All District employees are provided one work break during the first half of their workday and one work break during the second half of their workday, except in extreme emergency. No single work break shall exceed 15 minutes. An employee is not permitted to accumulate unused work breaks nor may the work break be used to cover an employee's late arrival or early departure from duty. All employees shall take a minimum of one half hour lunch break each workday. The following discussion is found in the Employee Handbook concerning the "Code of Ethics:" Florida has been a leader among the states in establishing ethical standards for public officials and employees and recognizing the right of her people to protect the public trust against abuse. Our state constitution was revised in 1968 to require that (a)a code of ethics for all state employees and non-judicial officers prohibiting conflict between public duty and private interests shall be prescribed by law. Art III, Sec. 18, Fla. Constitution. The "Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees" by which the Legislature carried out this constitutional mandate is found in Chapter 112 (Part III) of the Florida Statutes. The purpose of the Code is to ensure that public officials and employees conduct themselves independently and impartially, not using their offices or positions for private gains other than remuneration provided by law and to avoid conflicts between public duties and private interest. . . . The standards of conduct summarized below generally apply to all District employees. The types of conduct prohibited are: Gifts- No public employee shall solicit or accept anything of value- including a gift, loan, reward, promise of future employment, favor, or service- that is based on any understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the employee would be influenced by such gift. Sec. 112.313(2), Fla. Stat. (1991). Unauthorized Compensation- No public employee or his/her spouse or minor child shall accept any compensation, payment or thing of value which, with the exercise of reasonable care, is known or should be known to influence the official action of such employee. Sec. 112.313(4), Fla. Stat. (1991). Doing Business with One's Agency- No public employee acting as a purchasing agent or acting in his/her official capacity shall, directly or indirectly, purchase, rent, or lease any realty, goods, or services from a business entity in which his/her spouse, or child is an officer, partner, director, or proprietor, or in which his/her spouse, or child (or any combination of them) has a material interest. Nor shall a public employee, acting in a private capacity, rent, lease, or sell any realty, goods or services to his/her own agency. Sec. 112.313(3), Fla. Stat. (1991). Conflicting Employment or Contractual Relationship- No public employee shall hold any employment or contractual relationship with any business entity or agency which is subject to the regulation of, or doing business with, the employee's agency. Nor shall an employee hold any employment or contractual relationship which will pose a recurring conflict between his/her private interests and his/her public duties or which would impede the full and faithful discharge of his/her duties. Sec. 112.313(7), Fla. Stat. (1991). Exemptions- Under certain circumstances the prohibitions of subsections (3) and (7) of Section 112.313, Florida Statutes, may not apply. Misuse of Public Position- No public employee shall corruptly use or attempt to use his/her official position or any property or resource within his/her trust, or perform his/her official duties, to obtain a special privilege, benefit or exemption for himself/ herself or others. Sec. 112.313(6), Fla. Stat. (1991). Disclosure or Use Of Certain Information- No public employee shall disclose or use information not available to the general public and gained by reason of his/her public position for his/her personal gain or benefit or the gain or benefit of others. Sec. 112.313(8), Fla. Stat.(1991). More specific ethics laws address financial disclosure and the reporting requirements which apply to Governing Board members, senior management, and employees with contracting authority. The above information has been provided to help you understand State Ethics Laws. The District supports and enforces these laws to the best of its ability and expects each employee to conduct their activities in a lawful manner. Conflicts of interest may be avoided by greater awareness of these Ethics Laws. If you are in doubt about the applicability of the ethics laws to your own circumstances or the circumstances of a subordinate or co-worker, contact the District's Office of Counsel. They will answer your questions or assist you in obtaining an opinion from the Commission on Ethics. Also included in the Employee Handbook is the District's Corrective Action Policy (Policy No. 803), which establishes standards governing non- executive employee conduct and discipline. Section F. of Policy No. 803 lists those acts of misconduct for which a non-executive District employee who has attained regular status may be disciplined. It provides in pertinent part as follows: The following forms of misconduct are unacceptable and subject an employee to corrective action based on the particular circumstances surrounding the incident. The list is provided merely as examples and is not intended to be all inclusive. The identification of these examples does not preclude the District's right to discipline or dismiss employees for other causes, including acts of misconduct which breach the requirements inherent in the employment relationship. 1. Unbecoming conduct: Any action or conduct by an employee which impedes the District's efforts, brings discredit on the District, impairs the operation or efficiency of the District or any employee, or impairs the employee's ability to perform his or her job. . . . 5. Absence Without Authorized Leave: Failure to obtain approval from the proper authority prior to any absence from work, except in the case of an emergency, illness or accident which requires the employee to be absent prior to receiving approval; Inexcusable or repeated failure to notify the appropriate Supervisor or division office of absence, due to sickness, within ten (10) minutes from the start of the normal work day; Being more than ten (10) minutes late to work for an inexcusable reason or on a repeated basis without notifying the appropriate Supervisor, or division office. . . . Unauthorized Use of District Property, Services, Equipment or Personnel: The use of any District property, services, equipment or personnel for any purpose other than District business. Employees shall be required to reimburse the District for the cost incurred by the District as a result of the unauthorized use of equipment or property. Improper or Careless Use of District Property, Including Vehicles: Failure to care for or properly use District property or equipment such as the failure to observe the proper speed limit while driving a District vehicle. . . . 11. Lying or Failure to Give Truthful or Requested Information: Oral or written statements that are deliberately inaccurate, incorrect or misleading but which do not constitute falsification of records. This includes lying or failure to provide information during an internal investigation. . . . 24. Violation or Disregard of Safety Practices: The failure to follow established safety practices as outlined in the District's Accident Prevention Manual. This includes failure to report any injury or accident; the performance of unsafe acts; or the failure to wear or use appropriate safety equipment. . . . Negligence: The failure to use ordinary or reasonable care, caution, attention, diligence or discretion in the performance of assigned duties and responsibilities. Falsification of a District Record: The intentional issuance of a false or incomplete report or record, either oral or written, or the intentional failure to issue a record regarding the performance of work duties, attendance, injury, illness, job qualifications or other work related matters. Policy No. 803 specifically provides for four basic types of "corrective action" to deal with acts of misconduct. They are, in order of severity: oral reprimand (OR); written reprimand (WR); suspension (S); and dismissal (D). In determining the appropriate "corrective action" to be taken in a particular situation, supervisory personnel must follow the "standards" set forth in Section G. of Policy No. 803, which provides as follows: This section has been established as a guide for use by Supervisors to help ensure that all employees receive similar treatment in like circumstances. The guidelines on severity of corrective action outlined in Section H. is not meant to be an exhaustive listing of all possible acts of misconduct or forms of corrective action. Appropriate corrective action of unlisted acts of misconduct may be derived by comparing the nature and seriousness of the offense to those listed in Section H. In many cases, the guidelines on severity of corrective action are based on the number of occurrences and the seriousness of the offense and are presented as a range of action which covers more than one form of corrective action. The use of a particular form of corrective action is not mandatory simply because it is listed in Section H. Realizing that some of the offenses listed will be more or less serious in certain cases, the supervisor taking the corrective action shall utilize good judgment in light of all available facts. The corrective action selected must ultimately be appropriate in light of the particular circumstances surrounding the incident and the employee's past performance and conduct record. For example, even for offenses where dismissal is not indicated for a first offense, dismissal on a first occurrence may be assessed for an aggravated offense or a continuous pattern of misconduct. Similarly, where dismissal is indicated, a less severe form of corrective action may be taken. This action may be taken so long as it is more severe than that given in the most recent prior occurrence that is still active, and is reasonably consistent with other cases of misconduct for other employees. Temporary and initial probationary employees may be suspended or dismissed without regard to the standards of corrective action. In determining the severity of corrective action to be applied, the authorized Supervisor should take into account the following variables: The severity of the specific act of misconduct. The circumstances under which the violation occurred. The consequences of the employee's actions in regard to its affect on the District operation and on other employees. The guidelines on severity of corrective action outlined in Section H. of this policy. The overall work record of the employee; length of employment; and the employee's prior history of other similar or unrelated corrective actions, including active and inactive offenses. The length of time since earlier corrective action, the similarity or dissimilarity of the offense, and the severity of earlier offenses. The following are among "the guidelines on severity of corrective action outlined in Section H." of Policy No. 803: 1. Unbecoming conduct: 1st occurrence- WR, S or D . . 5. Absence Without Authorized Leave (Does not affect scheduling or work of others): 1st occurrence- OR; 2nd occurrence- WR . . Unauthorized Use of District Property, Services, Equipment, or Personnel (With intent to obtain personal gain: 1) Cost to District of less than $50.00): 1st occurrence- S; 2nd occurrence- S or D; 3rd occurrence: D Unauthorized Use of District Property, Services, Equipment, or Personnel (With intent to obtain personal gain: 2) Cost to District of more than $50.00): 1st occurrence- S or D; 2nd occurrence- D Improper or Careless Use of District Property (Not involving personal injury or property damage): 1st occurrence: OR . . . 11. Lying or Failure to Give Truthful or Requested Information: 1st occurrence- WR or S; 2nd occurrence- S or D; 3rd occurrence- D . . . 24. Violation or Disregard of Safety Practices (Not involving personal injury or property damage): 1st occurrence- OR . . . Negligence (Not involving personal injury or property damage): 1st occurrence- OR . . . Falsification of District Record: 1st occurrence- S or D; 2nd occurrence- D The Accident and Related Events In the latter part of September of 1991, Petitioner's personal vehicle was in an automotive repair shop in Stuart. On September 17, 1991, at Petitioner's request, Donald Hagan, Petitioner's subordinate, drove Petitioner to the repair shop in Stuart, which was outside of their assigned territory, in a District vehicle. The purpose of the trip was to ascertain whether the repairs on Petitioner's personal vehicle had been completed. Upon his arrival at the repair shop, Petitioner was advised that the necessary parts had not come in and that therefore it would be another week until he would be able to pick up his vehicle. A week later, on September 24, 1991, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Hagan was in his District vehicle in the parking lot outside the Okeechobee field station when Petitioner walked up to him. Petitioner told Hagan that the repairs on Petitioner's personal vehicle had been completed. He then asked if Hagan would give him a ride to the repair shop in Stuart so that he could pick up the vehicle. Hagan responded in the affirmative. Petitioner thereupon entered Hagan's District vehicle and sat down in the front passenger seat. After Petitioner was situated, Hagan drove off, headed in the direction of the repair shop. Before reaching their destination, Hagan and Petitioner were involved in an automobile accident when Hagan lost control of the vehicle and it ended up in a ditch. The vehicle was damaged and it was towed to West Palm Beach for repairs. Hagan sustained two fractured ribs as a result of the accident. Petitioner was also injured, but not as seriously as Hagan. Both received medical treatment for their injuries. Hagan's and Petitioner's ill-fated trip did not have any District- related purpose. Nonetheless, following the accident, Petitioner reported otherwise, notwithstanding that he knew that he was providing false information to the District. On the night of the accident, he told his then immediate supervisor, Edward Maciejko, over the telephone that he and Hagan were on their way to conduct an inspection of distressed cypress trees in St. Lucie County when the accident occurred. Petitioner also prepared an accident report in which he made the same misrepresentation. A workers' compensation claim was filed on behalf of Petitioner in reliance upon this misrepresentation. Initially, Hagan corroborated Petitioner's story about the purpose of their September 24, 1991, trip. Later, however, he told supervisory personnel the truth about the matter. For his part in the incident and the subsequent cover-up, he was reprimanded and received a two-day suspension. On two occasions following Hagan's revelation regarding the true purpose of the trip, Petitioner was provided an opportunity by Alan Goldstein, who had recently become Petitioner's immediate supervisor and was looking into allegations of misconduct against Petitioner, to recant the statements he had previously made regarding the matter. Petitioner, however, declined to do so and instead repeated what he had said earlier on the subject. 2/ The Speeding Ticket and Related Events On October 3, 1991, while driving his District vehicle to a work- related meeting in Lake Placid, Florida, to which he did not want to be late, Petitioner was stopped by a Florida Highway Patrol trooper and given a traffic citation for travelling 84 miles per hour in a 55-mile per hour zone. Petitioner had exceeded the posted 55-mile per hour speed limit, but by less than the trooper indicated on the citation. Nonetheless, for convenience sake, Petitioner did not contest the citation. On the day he received the citation, Petitioner telephoned Edward Maciejko, who was still his immediate supervisor at the time, and told Maciejko that he had been "flagged down" by a trooper earlier that day while on his way to Lake Placid in his District vehicle. Subsequently, during an investigation of alleged wrongdoing on Petitioner's part conducted after Alan Goldstein, had become Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Goldstein asked Petitioner if he had informed Maciejko about the traffic citation he had received on October 3, 1991. Petitioner responded in the affirmative to this inquiry. To the best of his recollection, he had so informed Maciejko and therefore believed that he was being truthful in his response to Goldstein's inquiry. The Loan and Related Events Dry Lake Dairy (Dairy) is an Okeechobee dairy farm that has been owned and operated by the Rucks family since 1958. J. Boyd Rucks is President of the Dairy. As President, it is his responsibility to deal with governmental agencies that exercise regulatory authority over the Dairy and its operations. The District is one of these governmental agencies. In or sometime prior to 1990, the Dairy received a surface water management permit from the District. It subsequently obtained a modification to the permit to engage in a ditch clearing operation. In November of 1990, the District issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) alleging that the Dairy had violated the terms of its permit. Petitioner was actively involved in the investigation that led to the issuance of the NOV. Following the issuance of the NOV, it was his responsibility to make sure that the necessary steps were being taken by the Dairy to correct the problems identified in the NOV. At first, he visited the Dairy on a regular basis to monitor its compliance efforts. Thereafter, these regular visits ceased and his monitoring activities were confined to flying over the Dairy during his monthly aerial inspection of his territory. By the middle of October of 1991, the Dairy had made substantial progress toward correcting the violation with which it had been charged by the District, but the matter had not been finally resolved. 3/ At the time, Petitioner needed to borrow $500.00. Notwithstanding that the enforcement action against the Dairy, in which he played an integral role, was still ongoing, Petitioner ill-advisedly decided to approach the Dairy's President and its representative in its dealings with the District, J. Boyd Rucks, about loaning him the money. Petitioner knew Rucks through Petitioner's work with the District. Their relationship was purely a professional one. They did not socialize. While Rucks, on behalf of the Dairy, often made cash advances to its employees, neither he nor the Dairy was in the business of making loans to members of the general public. Never before had either of them made a loan to a District employee. At around noon on October 14, 1991, Petitioner was in his District vehicle on his way back from a field inspection when he stopped by Rucks' home and asked Rucks if he would lend Petitioner $500.00. Rucks told Petitioner that he would have to discuss the matter with other members of his family and that Petitioner should return later in the day for an answer. At around 3:30 or 4:00 p.m. that afternoon, Petitioner returned to Rucks' home in his District vehicle. 4/ Having obtained the approval of the family members to whom he had spoken, Rucks gave Petitioner $500.00 from the Dairy's petty cash fund. Petitioner was to repay the money within ten days. There was no interest charged. Petitioner did not believe that he was doing anything wrong in soliciting and accepting this loan from Rucks. There was no understanding on the part of either Petitioner or Rucks that the making of this loan to Petitioner would in any way influence Petitioner in the discharge of his duties as an employee of the District. Petitioner never suggested, nor did Rucks expect, that the Dairy would receive favorable treatment in its dealings with the District as a result of the loan. The two viewed the transaction as a personal matter unrelated to District business. Because of illness that required hospitalization, Petitioner was unable to repay the loan within ten days. The loan was repaid in full within three weeks. Petitioner's Personal Circumstances During the period of time in which the alleged acts of misconduct in the instant case were committed, Petitioner was experiencing a significant amount of stress in his personal life. He was having money problems. In addition, his relationship with his wife was deteriorating. The day after he received the loan from Rucks, Petitioner was admitted to a psychiatric hospital for treatment. He remained hospitalized for two weeks.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order (1) finding that disciplinary action, in the form of a suspension covering the period from January 9, 1992, to the date of the issuance of said final order, should be taken against Petitioner, but based only upon those acts of misconduct described in Conclusion of Law 70 of this Recommended Order, (2) reducing Petitioner's dismissal to such a suspension, and (3) reinstating Petitioner to the position he previously held or a comparable position. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of October, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3101 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on what the parties have labelled as "findings of facts" in their proposed recommended orders: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. To the extent that this proposed finding states that "[e]mployees receive the Handbook at new employee orientation," it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Otherwise, it has been rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact based upon such testimony; Third sentence: Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 4-7. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 8. First and second sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third sentence: Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 9-11. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that this proposed finding references Edward Muldowney's participation in the internal investigation and Muldowney's "extensive investigative experience," it has been rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 15-16. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 20-22. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of legal argument. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 25a.-25b. To the extent that these proposed findings state that Petitioner was absent during non-break periods of the workday on September 24, 1991, and on October 14, 1991, without the authorization and approval of the appropriate authority, they have been rejected because they are not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, they have been adopted and incorporated in substance. 25c.-26a. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 26b. Last sentence: Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence; Remaining sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance. 26c. Last sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Remaining sentences: Rejected because they are more in the nature of summaries of testimony adduced at hearing than findings of fact based upon such testimony. 26d. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 26e. First and second sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third sentence: Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 26f. Accepted and incorporated in substance. This proposed finding, which states that Petitioner lied or failed to give truthful or requested information on six, rather than three, occasions, has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 27a. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 27b. First, second and sixth sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third and fourth sentences: To the extent that these proposed findings state that Goldstein "specifically asked [Petitioner] if any part of the trip on the day of the accident was for personal reasons" and Petitioner "lied when he responded 'no'" to this question, they have been accepted and incorporated in substance. Otherwise, they have been rejected because they are not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 27c. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Goldstein talked to Petitioner about the September 17, 1991, trip to Stuart during the discussion referenced therein, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. 27e. Last sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Remaining sentences: Rejected because they are not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First, second, third and sixth sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Fourth sentence: To the extent that this proposed finding states that Hagan "was a passenger in the vehicle at the time," it has been rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Otherwise, it has been rejected because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact based on such testimony; Fifth sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact based on such testimony. 30-32d. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 32e. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: To the extent that this proposed suggests that Petitioner did not perform "his regulatory functions, including those at the Dry Lake Dairy, in an unbiased manner" as a result of the loan, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. 10/ Third and fourth sentences: Rejected because they are not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 11/ 33-33b. Rejected because they concern alleged misconduct outside the scope of the charges specified in the notice of termination. 33c. Rejected because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Petitioner's assigned territory included Martin County, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding recites verbatim the "Grievance Resolution," it has been rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Respondent was "summarily" dismissed upon given his notice of termination without the opportunity to respond and that he never before "had an evaluation which was less than satisfactory," it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Petitioner was deprived of "due process," that he was terminated "arbitrarily" and that the charges against him "are so vague as to make them void," it has been rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of legal argument. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance.
The Issue The issue is whether to approve an application by Respondents, Palm Beach County (County) and The David Minkin Florida Realty Trust, Richard Thall, Robert Thall, Peter L. Briger, Paul H. Briger, and The Lester Family Investments, LP (The Briger Group), for a conceptual Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) authorizing a surface water management system to serve a mixed-use development in the City of Palm Beach Gardens known as Scripps Florida Phase II/Briger (Scripps project).
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties Petitioner Tsolkas resides at 822 North C Street, Lake Worth, Florida, which is approximately 16.8 miles (in a straight line) south-southeast of the project site and approximately one mile west of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). Among others, he expressed concerns in this case about the potential extinction of species and the impact of the proposed site on the ICW. However, other than a general interest in environmental issues, he presented no evidence to demonstrate how he is affected by the issuance of the permit. Petitioner Minaya resides at 901 North Federal Highway, Apartment A, Lake Worth, Florida, and approximately the same distance from the project site and ICW. He has the same concerns as Petitioner Tsolkas but presented no evidence to demonstrate how the project will affect his substantial interests. The County is a chartered county and a political subdivision of the state. It owns approximately 70.0 acres of the site on which the Scripps project will be located and the 193.92-acre off-site mitigation area for the project at the Pine Glades Natural Area (Pine Glades). It is a co-applicant for an ERP. The Briger Group is a co-applicant for the modified ERP and owns 611.69 acres of the project site. The original permit that is being modified was issued as conceptual approval on January 19, 1978. The District is a public corporation in the State, having been created by special act in 1949 and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The Application On April 27, 2009, the applicants submitted an application to modify a conceptual ERP, Application No. 090427- 7, for a surface water management system to serve 681.89 acres of mixed-use development in the City of Palm Beach Gardens (City). The original permit was also issued as a conceptual approval in 1978 and has been modified conceptually on a number of occasions, most recently in 2001. The application includes 193.92 acres of off-site mitigation at Pine Glades in the northern part of the County and additional off-site mitigation through the purchase of mitigation credits at the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank in the southern part of the County. "Conceptual approval" means "an [ERP], issued by the District Governing Board, which approves a conceptual master plan for a surface water management system or a mitigation bank." Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.021(5). It constitutes final agency action and is "binding to the extent that adequate data has been made available for review by the applicant during the review process." Id. After conceptual approval is obtained, the applicants must then file an application for an ERP to construct and operate the surface water management system. Therefore, no construction will be authorized by this permit. On April 16, 2010, the District issued a Staff Report recommending approval of the requested ERP. A Revised Staff Report making minor changes and clarifications to the original proposed agency action was issued on May 4, 2010. The Project and the Site The proposed project that will be served by the surface water management system is a multi-use development on a 681-acre tract located south of Donald Ross Road and north of Hood Road in the City. The site is divided by Interstate 95 (I-95) into two wedge-shaped parcels known as the western and eastern parcels. The Florida Turnpike adjoins the western side of the western parcel. With the exception of the highways, the site is surrounded by residential development including two projects located just east of the site: Legends at the Gardens (on the northern side) and San Michele (on the southern side). A portion of the site located east of I-95 is mostly undeveloped and vegetated. However, approximately 60 acres located at the southeast corner of the site include an existing horse farm with improved and unimproved pastures. The central and southern portions of this parcel contain a number of ditches that were created prior to the 1950s. The portion of the site west of I-95 is undeveloped and vegetated, but it also includes a few mobile homes on approximately 2 acres at the southern end of the site. The upland habitats are disturbed and degraded and primarily include pine flatwoods, mixed hardwood-pine forest, hardwood hammock, and dry prairie, some of which are infested with Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, and Japanese climbing fern. There are also around 86 acres of state jurisdictional wetlands and other surface waters. Finally, the southwestern portion of the parcel located west of I-95 contains a prehistoric/archaeological site which is proposed for preservation. The County owns 70 acres of the property on the eastern parcel, while The Briger Group owns the remaining acreage. The project is anticipated to house the Scripps Research Institute, as well as ancillary institutional, commercial, and residential uses. The project received development of regional impact approval from the City on April 1, 2010, and is subject to a master plan that identifies land use districts, such as a biotech district, a town center district, residential districts, and a neighborhood-serving commercial district. The 70 acres owned by the County will be used to house the second phase of the Scripps Research Institute. It is unknown at this time whether the Scripps facility will house administrative offices, laboratory space, or some other use. The build-out schedule for the project is twenty years. Before construction can commence, the applicants will be required to obtain zoning and site plan approval from the City, authorization from both the Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District (Improvement District) and the Seacoast Utility Authority, and a permit from the County Health Department. Also, the applicants will be required to receive a construction-related modification to the ERP from the District. The Surface Water Management System In 2001, the District issued a permit to the Improvement District for conceptual approval of a surface water management system for flood protection within a 4,059.9-acre area known as Unit 2, which includes the area of the proposed project. See Respondents' Exhibit 57. Drainage from the project site is presently covered by this permit. The Improvement District's system was designed, constructed, and is being operated and maintained for stormwater treatment. The waters in that system are not considered waters of the State. The proposed project will discharge into the Improvement District's system, which is upstream of a permitted man-made control structure on the property designed to retain or detain stormwater runoff in order to provide treatment and attenuation of the stormwater. The proposed system is primarily a wet detention system consisting of three large basins: A1, B1E(East), and B1W(West). The system has been designed to provide water quality and storm water attenuation prior to overflowing to the Improvement District's Unit 2 master system. As shown in the conceptual plans, Basin B1W is located on the west side of I-95 and has a control elevation of 13.5 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Mostly residential development is anticipated in this basin with a small supporting commercial development. An existing 60-inch culvert located under I-95 will continue to connect the two wetland areas, identified as W1 and W2, that are located on both the west and east sides of I- 95, respectively. Basin B1E is located in the southeastern portion of the site and will be controlled at 13.0 feet NGVD. Anticipated development in this area will be mostly residential neighborhoods as well. Exhibit 2 of the Staff Report reflects that runoff from the out-parcels and the northern half of Hood Road will be directed into the proposed project area. Pervious and impervious assumptions were made for future Hood Road improvements and are listed in the land use table. See Respondents' Exhibit 43 at p. 3 of 26. Basin B1E will overflow into the Unit 2 master system via a control structure and outfall pipe which discharges to a wet pond located within the adjacent San Michele development to the east. Industrial and commercial development is planned in Basin A1, which is the northeastern basin. The lakes will be controlled at elevation 13.0 feet NGVD. Runoff from this basin will be directed eastward into the Improvement District's Unit 2 master system via a control structure and pipe connection into the lake within the Legends of the Gardens development to the east. The applicants submitted site grading assumptions and pervious/impervious percentages as well as stormwater modeling to demonstrate compliance with the existing master system for the overall Improvement District's Unit 2 master system. In addition, the system for this basin has been designed to accommodate inflows from approximately 50 acres of I-95 right- of-way through an existing control structure which was permitted as part of the I-95 widening project. The proposed project includes direct impacts to a total of 78.47 acres of on-site wetlands. Wetland mitigation to offset the adverse impacts includes enhancement of 7.50 acres of on-site wetlands; the purchase of 13.70 freshwater herbaceous credits at the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank; off-site wetland and upland restoration and enhancement of 163.41 acres of wetlands; and preservation of 30.51 acres of other surface waters, or a total of 193.92 acres, at Pine Glades. The ERP Permitting Criteria In order to obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. Additionally, the District has adopted BOR provisions that implement the relevant portions of the rules. The conditions for issuance primarily focus on water quantity, water quality, and environmental criteria and form the basis of the District's ERP permitting program. The first step in the District's environmental review is to identify wetlands and other surface waters. On March 5, 2009, the District issued a formal determination of wetlands delineating 34 wetland areas and 4 jurisdictional surface water ditches. This determination was not timely challenged and therefore represents final agency action. That determination was used in this permit application. Water Quantity Criteria Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the propose activity will not cause adverse affects to water quantity, while Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b) requires reasonable assurances that the proposed activity will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property. The BOR provides a method to calculate allowable discharge rates. The evidence is that the proposed discharge is well within the standards imposed by the rules governing water quantity impacts. There will be no on-site or off-site flooding as a consequence of the proposed project. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires reasonable assurance that there will be no adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. The evidence supports a finding that the proposed discharge will not cause any adverse impacts. Also, the system is capable of being developed and of functioning as proposed, as required by Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i). Petitioners contended that the project poses a threat of over-draining, which will significantly affect the region directly and cumulatively. However, the project does not pose a risk of over-draining because the control elevation of the project will be maintained at a level consistent with surrounding properties and the proposed drainage rate is less than the allowable rate under the rules. Water Quality Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) sets forth the requirements relating to water quality. Also, BOR Section 5 contains the design criteria that a project must follow regarding off-site discharges to provide reasonable assurances to satisfy the above rule. Water quality treatment will be provided in a proposed wet detention system which utilizes stormwater ponds. The evidence shows that the ponds are larger than required, thereby providing water quality treatment in excess of what is required by the BOR. All water quality standards will be met. Hazardous Waste Management Plan Petitioners contend that no hazardous waste management plan was submitted to the District. However, a plan is not required now because it would need to address the specific uses for the property, which have not yet been designated. Special Condition 31 of the permit requires that such a plan be submitted at the time an application for construction approval is filed with the District. When this is submitted, it will be reviewed to determine if there are reasonable assurances that hazardous materials, if any, will not enter the proposed project's surface water management system. Elimination and Reduction Under BOR Section 4.2.1, after the District identifies the wetlands and other surface waters, the next step is to consider elimination and reduction of impacts. However, BOR Section 4.2.1.2(b) provides that an applicant is not required to demonstrate elimination and reduction impacts when: the applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides greater ecological value and that provides greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected. In considering this provision, the District concluded, consistent with the evidence, that the quality of the wetlands which will be adversely affected by this application is low, and the mitigation proposed will provide greater long-term ecological value than the wetlands impacted. This is because the mitigation at both Pine Glades and the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank have regional ecological value, and these sites will provide greater long-term ecological value than the impacted wetlands. Secondary Impacts Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) requires reasonable assurance that the project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources. BOR Section 4.2.7 sets forth the requirements for on-site wetlands that will be preserved and enhanced. Under that section, secondary impacts to the habitat of wetlands associated with adjacent upland activities will not be considered adverse if buffers, with a minimum width of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet, are provided abutting the wetlands. In this case, the single wetland area being preserved is buffered in accordance with those requirements. Applicants have satisfied the requirements of the rule. Mitigation If impacts to wetlands and other surface waters will occur, then mitigation may be offered to offset the impacts to functions identified in BOR Sections 4.2 through 4.2.9. To assess the impacts and the value of mitigation, the applicants used the statewide Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method and the Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure. Those results are found in Appendix 1 of the application and in Responses to Requests for Additional Information submitted in August 2009 and January 2010. Page 13 of the Staff Report describes the mitigation. The District also performed its own independent analysis of both the impact and mitigation. That analysis demonstrated that sufficient mitigation is available in the options identified to offset the impacts. In fact, there was a net functional gain to the environment. In order to offset 50.76 acres of wetland impacts, the applicants will provide restoration and enhancement of 139.6 acres of wetlands and 23.81 acres of uplands, and preservation of 30.51 acres of other surface waters, or a total of 193.92 acres, at Pine Glades. Mitigation at this location offsets those impacts and is appropriate because it will provide more functional gain than the amount of functional loss for the same habitat types that are being impacted. Because Pine Glades is within the same drainage basin as the impacts, and the mitigation offsets the impacts, the District is not required to consider cumulative impacts. See § 373.414(8), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(b). Petitioners suggested that because Pine Glades is already owned by the County and intended to be restored, by allowing the applicants to receive mitigation credit for the restoration amounts to "double dipping." However, the evidence shows that the 193 acres proposed as mitigation in the permit is site-specific; no one has ever received mitigation credit for it in the past and no one will be able to receive mitigation credit for it in the future; and The Briger Group paid $86,250.00 per functional unit to reimburse the County for the cost of the land. Mitigation credit for restoration at Pine Glades is appropriate. As compensation for impacts to a total of 26.14 acres of freshwater marsh wetlands, the applicants will mitigate off- site by purchasing 13.70 freshwater herbaceous credits at the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank. This bank is of regional ecological significance. Mitigation at this bank offsets the impacts and is appropriate because it will offset the impacts to freshwater marsh wetlands. Drainage basins are established by District rule in BOR Figure 4.4-1. While Petitioners contended that BOR Figure 4.4-1 does not accurately identify the geographic boundaries of the South Indian River Basin, which is being used here, the District is required to follow its own rules when reviewing an ERP application. Therefore, the use of Figure 4.4-1 was appropriate to determine whether the project is located within or outside of that drainage basin. Because the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank is not located within the same basin as the proposed impacts, it was necessary for the District to consider cumulative impacts which will be mitigated at that bank. See § 373.414(8), Fla. Stat. This means that the applicants are required to give reasonable assurances that the impacts proposed for mitigation at Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank would not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts if the regulatory precedent set by the permit were applied to all properties within the basin that have the same type of habitat as that being impacted by the project and that have potential for development. The project will be located in the South Indian River Basin. The District's cumulative impact analysis for that basin supports a finding that there is very limited potential for future wetland loss in the basin and reasonable assurances have been given that there will be no adverse cumulative impacts. See Respondents' Exhibit 60. Species Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires an applicant to demonstrate that the activities will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. This evaluation is limited to wetland-dependent species. Upland species fall outside of the District's jurisdiction. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, the hand fern is not a wetland-dependent species. Also, the District must rely on State-listed species, and not lists prepared by federal agencies. The evidence shows that the potential for utilization of this site by wetland-dependent species is minimal, and this site does not contain preferred habitat for nesting or denning of wetland dependent listed species. Although the site does not contain preferred habitat, the habitat value currently existing on this site will be replaced with mitigation at Pine Glades and the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank. Public Interest Test In order to obtain a conceptual approval ERP, an applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the system located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters will not be contrary to the public interest and will not be inconsistent with the objectives of the District. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)1.-7.; § 373.414(1), Fla. Stat. The evidence establishes that reasonable assurances were provided to demonstrate that the proposed activities will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or the welfare or property of others; that they will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitat; that there are no issues related to navigability or the flow of water, erosion or shoaling; that the property does not currently provide fishing, recreational values, or marine productivity and is not open to the public; that the activity will be permanent; that there is an archeological site on the property which the applicants will preserve; that the mitigation will more than fully offset the impacts; and that the value of the functions currently being performed will not be adversely affected. Petitioners offered no evidence or analysis to rebut the expert testimony offered by Respondents. After balancing all seven factors, the evidence supports a finding that the activities will not be contrary to the public interest. Florida Coastal Management Program Petitioners contend that the project is inconsistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMA), which is administered by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). They also assert that the District is required to coordinate its review of the application with that agency and that it failed to do so. However, the issuance of the ERP (after a demonstration that all permitting criteria have been satisfied) constitutes certification that the project is consistent with the FCMA and no coordination with DEP is necessary. Other Criteria Any other criteria not discussed herein were either satisfied by the applicants or are not relevant to the project. Petitioners' Evidence Other than very limited cross-examination of some of Respondents' witnesses, Petitioner Minaya did not present any evidence to support his allegations. Other than cross-examination of Respondents' witnesses, Petitioner Tsolkas, a lay person, testified that his standing was based on general concerns that the project would drive species (such as the hand fern) into extinction, that it would pollute waters, including the ICW, and that it would destroy habitat for other species. No competent or persuasive evidence to support these contentions was presented. Other issues raised by Mr. Tsolkas were matters beyond the District's jurisdiction and are not considered in the permitting process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting Application No. 090427-7 with the conditions contained in the Amended Staff Report. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2010.
