The Issue The issue is whether an Environmental Resource Permit should be issued to Conquest Developments USA, L.C., authorizing the modification of an existing stormwater management system serving a residential development known as Silver Lakes in Collier County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this environmental permitting dispute, Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (District), proposes to issue an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to Respondent, Conquest Developments USA, L.C. (Applicant), authorizing the modification of an existing stormwater management system serving a private, gated residential community known as Silver Lakes RV and Golf Club, Inc. (Silver Lakes) in unincorporated Collier County, Florida. As the agency responsible for the administration of the ERP program, the District has the authority to grant or deny the requested permit. Preliminary action approving the application was taken by the District on August 15, 2001. Silver Lakes is a 146-acre residential development located adjacent to, and on the east side of, County Road 951 approximately 1.5 miles south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and County Road 951 in southwestern Collier County, Florida. The project site is a part of the larger development and consists of approximately forty undeveloped acres (40-acre site) just north of, and adjacent to, the residential community. If the application is approved, the Applicant would be allowed to construct an open storage facility on a 7.02-acre tract of land in the western part of the 40-acre site on which trailers, boats, motor homes, tow dollies, and similar items will be stored. It would also allow the Applicant to relocate previously permitted lots along the southeastern boundary of the 40-acre site which border the Silver Lakes development. Petitioners, Jerome and Susan Strauss, own Lots 14, 15, and 16 within Silver Lakes. Petitioners, Joseph H. and Patricia Belanger, own Lot 26 within Silver Lakes, which is adjacent to the proposed storage facility. For obvious reasons, the Belangers do not wish to have a storage facility next to their property. Rather, they and the other Petitioners have suggested that the storage facility be reduced in size and moved to a 3.0-acre site in the northeastern portion of the 40-acre site. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners have standing to bring this action. As reflected in the parties' Prehearing Stipulation, Petitioners contend that the proposed construction of the storage area will cause flooding, adverse secondary impacts, and adverse water quantity impacts; that the proposed activity will result in a violation of state water quality standards; that the proposed system will cause adverse impacts to surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters, and the conservation of fish and wildlife; that the Applicant has failed to minimize or avoid impact to jurisdictional wetlands to the greatest extent practicable; that the proposed site provides a wildlife corridor connected to protected lands directly to the west; that the proposed site is jurisdictional wetlands; that the Applicant has engaged in District activities without a permit; and that the proposed site is subject to a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These objections, where relevant, have been grouped into five categories - wetlands, wildlife, secondary and cumulative impacts, water quality and quantity, and prior enforcement activities - and they are addressed separately below. Wetlands The District has adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, a document known as the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District (Basis of Review). The standards and criteria found in the Basis of Review are used to determine whether an applicant has given reasonable assurances that the conditions for issuance of an ERP have been satisfied. Compliance with the criteria in the Basis of Review creates a presumption that the standard and additional conditions for issuance of an ERP in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E- 4.302, Florida Administrative Code, respectively, have been met. See Section 1.3, Basis of Review. Section 4.2.1 of the Basis of Review generally requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that wetland impacts be eliminated or reduced to the greatest extent practicable. This can be done through the implementation of "practicable design modifications" to the project, or where adverse impacts still remain after such modifications, through mitigation. There are 36.82 acres of wetlands throughout the 40- acre site. If the application is approved, there will be adverse impacts to 9.9 acres of wetlands in the western portion of the site (where the storage facility will be located) and to 3.37 acres in the southeastern portion of the site. To avoid and minimize wetland impacts, the Applicant has been required to reduce the number of acres impacted from its original proposal, and to place the storage area on the western part of the 40-acre site near County Road 951. In the original application, the Applicant proposed to place the storage area in the eastern part of the site and to create a larger storage area. Although the western part of the 40-acre site contains higher quality wetlands than the central or eastern parts, the western area is not pristine, and it is substantially impacted by exotic species, such as wax myrtle and Brazilian pepper. In addition, the western area is adjacent to County Road 951, which reduces wetland functions and values, reduces habitat values because of increased light and noise encroachment, and increases risk to wildlife because of passing vehicles. Further, the central and eastern areas are adjacent to other undeveloped lands, and this creates the potential for larger tracts of preserved and enhanced wetlands and maximizes wetland functions and values. Impacts to wetlands will be adequately mitigated by the Applicant preserving and enhancing 26.92 acres within the 40-acre site in a recorded conservation easement; by monitoring and reporting on the on-site mitigation (easement) for a five-year period and by maintaining the property in perpetuity; by purchasing 3.66 mitigation credits of similar wetland habitat from the Panther Island Mitigation Bank; and by adhering to a remediation plan (found in the Special Conditions in the permit) to address any future deficiencies in the mitigation. Given these considerations, it is found that the Applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the wetland impacts from the proposed activities will be eliminated or reduced as required by Section 4.2.1 of the Basis of Review. Impact on Wildlife Section 4.2.2 of the Basis of Review requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the activity will not impact the values of wetlands and other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to the abundance, diversity, or habitat of fish, wildlife, and listed species. The primary agency responsible for the protection of wildlife is the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (Commission), and not the District. Therefore, Section 4.2.2 of the Basis of Review requires that the District provide the Commission with a copy of all ERP applications for its review and comment as to wildlife issues. In this case, the Commission offered no comments or objections regarding wildlife on the property in question. The evidence shows that listed and endangered species such as Florida panthers, wood storks, and Big Cypress fox squirrels have been spotted on infrequent occasions on the 40-acre site by residents of Silver Lake. However, the parties stipulated that there was no evidence of any nesting, denning, or breeding activity on the same site. Based on the evidence of record, including the Applicant's Protected Species Survey, it is fair to infer that there is limited or no use of the property by protected wildlife species. Indeed, Petitioners' own expert found no evidence of endangered or threatened species on the 40-acre site during his two inspections. Two Special Conditions have been incorporated into the permit to protect endangered, threatened, or other listed species. First, in the event that Big Cypress fox squirrels are observed on or near the property, Special Condition 24 requires that the Applicant prepare a habitat management plan, in consultation with the Commission, to address issues related to nesting habitat. Second, if any endangered or threatened species are ever found on the property, Special Condition 25 requires that the Applicant coordinate with the Commission or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Commission for guidance or recommendations. Given the above, the evidence supports a finding that the Applicant has given reasonable assurances that the requirements of Section 4.2.2 of the Basis of Review have been satisfied. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Section 4.2.7 of the Basis of Review requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that the proposed activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. At the same time, Section 4.2.8 requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin as the regulated activity for which the permit is being sought. In providing the necessary reasonable assurances regarding cumulative impacts, Section 4.2.8.2 authorizes an applicant to use preservation and mitigation measures to prevent cumulative impacts. The more persuasive evidence shows that the project will not cause secondary impacts to wetlands. This is because a water quality berm system surrounds the wetlands, isolating the wetland system from the surface water management system; a 50-foot preserved area lies between the storage area and the adjacent property boundary to the north; the storage area is being placed in an area already secondarily impacted by County Road 951; and the wetland preservation area will be placed in the conservation easement. Further, the project will not cause secondary impacts to wildlife. This is because structural buffers will prevent future encroachment into the wetlands and distance any wildlife away from the more dense residential functions. These buffers include a 50-foot wide natural preserve on the north side of the storage area (Special Condition 26), an already-erected structural buffer to the south of the storage area (Special Condition 26), and a 17 to 21-foot structural buffer (planted with native vegetation or vegetated buffers) on the eastern side of the 40-acre site where the new lots are proposed. Except for two conclusionary opinion statements by Petitioners' expert, without further facts or explanation, no other evidence on secondary impacts was offered. The project will not cause cumulative impacts to the wetlands. This is because the proposed mitigation for the project adequately offsets the impacts of the 40-acre site, and the impacts from other permitted projects in the basin area have been sufficiently offset. In addition, very little property in the area remains to be developed, and there are no new applications before the District involving the same basin. In the event a new application may be filed, however, the District will require the applicant to offset any impacts associated with its project with buffers and conservation easements, like the Applicant in the instant case. Water Quantity and Quality Section 5.0 et. seq. of the Basis of Review contains water quality criteria that must be satisfied in order for an ERP to be issued, while Section 6.0 et. seq. addresses water quantity criteria for an ERP. Given the limited nature of changes to the existing system and the lack of a hydrologic connection to the wetlands, and for the following additional reasons, the Applicant has given reasonable assurances that the project complies with the water quality and quantity criteria. The project as designed includes a grass swale near the storage area on the western part of the 40-acre site. The rainfall and run-off from the storage area flows into an internal road, through the grass swale, into a storm drain, and then into the pre-existing water management system associated with the original permit for Silver Lake. The project also allows rainfall and run-off from the proposed lots on the southeastern border of the 40-acre site to sheetflow onto an internal road, where waters are collected in existing catch basins and conveyed into the previously permitted water management system associated with the original permit. Since the rainfall and run-off from the storage area and lots drain into the existing lakes (Lakes 1 and 2) that are part of the Silver Lakes water management system, those waters will be treated for water quality through wet detention before their eventual discharge to McIlvane Bay, which lies to the southwest of Silver Lake. The basin discharge rates, minimum floor elevations, road designs, parking lot designs, structure control elevations, and structure sizes are specified in the the District's Staff Report, and were set at or above the calculated design limitations to meet water quality and quantity requirements. Section 5.2.1(a)1. of the Basis of Review specifies that wet detention volume shall be provided for the first inch of runoff from the developed project. The evidence shows that the proposed system captures one inch of run-off over the entire site, which drains into the existing lake system to provide water quality treatment. The system is also designed to meet the relevant discharge rate requirements for a 25-year, 3-day storm event, and the minimum floor elevations were based on a 100-year, 3- day storm event. The wetland preserve area is outside the area served by the surface water management system, is not hydrologically connected to that system, and will not be affected by run-off from the storage area or lots. Just prior to the final hearing, the District added Special Condition 23 to create a 50-foot buffer zone along the southern boundary of the storage area for aesthetic purposes and to reduce secondary impacts. Implementation of that buffer must be in accordance with the staff report, will not change the surface water management system, will have no impact on water quality or flood control, and will be implemented after additional consultation with the District. Past Enforcement Rule 40E-4.302(2), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the District take into consideration past violations of various rules adopted by the District. No enforcement action relating to the property has ever been taken by the District against the Applicant for any violation of ERP requirements. Although Petitioners suggested that unpermitted fill activities have taken place on the southeastern part of the 40-acre site, an inspection by District personnel revealed that unpermitted activities were "not significant." Further, Special Condition 23 requires that the Applicant restore "that portion of the disturbed wetland area located in the southeast corner of the site which is to be included in the wetland preserve area." Therefore, any impacts to the 40-acre site resulting from past unpermitted activities have been considered and remedied.
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 Permit Application No. 010223-5 of Conquest Developments USA, L.C., for an Environmental Resource Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Anthony P. Pires, Jr., Esquire Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A. 3200 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34103-4105 Robert E. Murrell, Esquire Samouce, Murrell & Francoeur, P.A. 800 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34108-2713 Keith W. Rizzardi, Esquire South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Kenneth B. Cuyler, Esquire Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103-3556
Findings Of Fact The Dunes Golf and Country Club, Sanibel, is a partnership owned by John K. Kontinos and William R. Frizzell. They operate a nine hole golf course consisting of 65 acres of the eastern portion of Sanibel Island. The golf course is open to the public and, during the winter season, some 150 to 175 persons utilize the facility daily, but in the period May--November, it is utilized by only about 15 or 20 persons per day. The golf course is presently irrigated by water obtained from the lower Hawthorn and Suwannee aquifers through a well that is approximately 737 feet deep. On the days that water is pumped from the well, the pumping duration is from 8 to 12 hours per day, but the monthly hours during which pumping occurs averages approximately 155 hours per month. There is another existing well in another portion of the applicant's property which extends 896 feet into the Suwannee aquifer. The well presently in use (well number 1) has 546 feet of casing and the well that is not in use (well number 2) has 700 feet of casing. (Testimony of Kontinos, Exhibits 2, 4) On December 15, 1977, the Dunes Golf and Country Club submitted an application to the South Florida Water Management District for a consumptive use permit to withdraw 320 acre feet of groundwater per year to irrigate an area of approximately 109 acres. The intent of the application was to obtain a sufficient quantity of water to irrigate the golf course which the applicant intends to enlarge to consist of 18 holes. The additional 9 holes would cover some 44 acres and well number 2 is intended to be activated to provide additional water for this purpose. (Testimony of Kontinos, Keiling, Exhibits 1- 2) The South Florida Water Management District issued the required public notice of the application on March 30, 1978, and objections to the application were received by that agency from the City Council of Sanibel, the Island Water Association, Inc., and George R. Campbell. Public notice of hearing on the application was duly published on March 30, 1978. (Exhibits 5-7) The staff of the South Florida Water Management District reviewed the application and recommended continuation of the applicant's existing use from the lower Hawthorn Formation and use of additional irrigation water from the Suwannee aquifer in the total amount of 320 acre feet annually. It also recommended that the issuance of a permit should be conditioned in various respects to include semiannual submission of water quality data and pumpage records for each well, installation and maintenance of well controls, and repair or replacement of well casings, valves or controls that leak or become inoperative. The staff further recommended that maximum monthly withdrawals from the lower Hawthorn Formation be limited to 7.5 million gallons and 7.6 million gallons from the Suwannee Formation. At the hearing however, the South Florida Water Management District representative changed these recommendations to 8.9 MO and 6.1 MG respectively. Additionally, the initial recommendation of 320 acre feet annual withdrawal was reduced to 200 acre feet. This amount is considerably less that the average of 600 acre feet used on other comparably sized golf courses. Further the staff representative recommended at the hearing that a further condition be attached to the issuance of the permit; i.e., Condition 15, which requires the permittee to submit analyses of total dissolved concentrations in water samples from each well within 30 days of permit issuance and, if such concentration exceeds 4,000 MG/L, logging procedures as to the affected well will be required with necessary safeguards to be employed to eliminate any interaquifer leakage. (Testimony of Gleason, Exhibit 4) The objections of the City of Sanibel and the Island Water Association, Inc. involved concerns that further withdrawals from the lower Hawthorn aquifer will affect the availability of water which is treated by the water association for general island use. In addition, there is concern about possible contamination of the lower Hawthorn aquifer from interaquifer leakage. The Water Association is a member-owned cooperative that is not under the jurisdiction of the municipality. It is concerned about the draw down in the water table which will be occasioned by additional withdrawals by the applicant. It therefore believes that pumping tests should be conducted prior to the issuance of a permit to provide information concerning the capacity and safe yield of the wells. Although an Association expert testified that the proposed Dunes' withdrawal would create a cone of depression that would extend into and influence the existing Water Association wells, the evidence shows such influence to be minimal due to the fact that the Dunes wells are almost three miles away from the nearest Association well. Further, due to the limited time that the Dunes wells are pumped each day, the aquifer recovers to a certain extent during other hours. Although concerns are felt by the Water Association that water quality will be affected because of leakage from the Suwannee aquifer to the lower Hawthorn aquifer due to possible corrosion of steel casings in the Dunes wells, no evidence was presented that such casings are in fact defective and will contribute to degradation of water quality because of additional withdrawals. The additional special condition placed upon the issuance of a permit by the South Florida Water Management District will require correction of any such leakage that is discovered in the future. Previous studies show that the lower Hawthorn aquifer is separated from the Suwannee aquifer by the Tampa Limestone Formation which would slow down any entry of poorer quality water into the Hawthorn aquifer. It is found that the lesser amounts of water recommended by the South Florida Water Management District at the hearing will further reduce the likelihood of water quality degradation or draw down in other Island wells. (Testimony of Butler, Holland, Nuzman, Gleason, Exhibits 6, 8-13) Ecological concerns were expressed at the hearing by a public witness as to the wastefulness of irrigating golf coup Yes and the requirement for fertilizer in sandy soil which causes leaching of nutrients after heavy water use. (Testimony of Webb)
Recommendation That a permit be issued to the applicant authorizing the consumptive use of the quantity of water recommended by the South Florida Water Management District staff, subject to the recommended conditions thereto. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John H. Wheeler Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 James D. Decker, Esquire Post Office Box 200 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this matter is Capeletti Brothers, Inc., a Florida corporation. .The Respondent is the State of Florida, Department: of Environmental Regulation, an agency of the State of Florida with regulatory authority granted pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and those rules attendant thereto. Through its Petition as received by the State of Florida, Department: of Environmental Regulation, the present: Petitioner has filed a formal proceeding pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and through this Petition has challenged the Department's assertion of jurisdiction to require an-environmental permit and in the alternative has requested that the permit be granted if it is determined that a permit is necessary. (The jurisdictional question was ruled on by order dated December 7, 1979.) The Petitioner's activity which fostered the current dispute between the parties involved the Petitioner's intention to excavate certain property in Broward County, Florida, and through such excavation remove rock fill material constituted primarily of limestone and leave in place a quarry containing water. The Petitioner holds an option to purchase the property in question subject to the granting of necessary environmental permits to conduct the excavation. The terms and conditions of that option to sell may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibits 10 and 11, admitted into evidence. The Petitioner had intended to use the fill material in the furtherance of a road building project by contract entered into between the Petitioner and the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, the contract award being made on February 23, 1977. The parties to that contract terminated the contract prior to any permit for dredging having been granted; however, Petitioner still desires to excavate at the site for the purpose of obtaining fill material for future building projects and the nature of the option to purchase would allow the Petitioner to continue to pursue its efforts at obtaining a permit, notwithstanding the termination of the original agreement between Capeletti Brothers, Inc., and the State of Florida, Department of Transportation. The Respondent has issued a Notice of Intent to Deny the permit by a letter dated March 26, 1979, and a copy of the Notice of Intent to Deny may be found as Exhibit "A" to the Petition. This Notice of Intent to Deny followed the receipt and review of Capeletti Brothers, Inc.'s application for permit dated October 18, 1978. In addition, the Respondent has asserted permit jurisdiction based upon grounds not set forth in the Notice of Intent to Deny. This claim for jurisdiction is a claim for jurisdiction under the provisions of Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and their associated rules. A copy of the application for permit may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence and this application contains sketches showing the location of the proposed project with reference to the surrounding terrain and other features. The proposed project site consists of approximately forty-four acres of land located south of Andytown, Florida, and west of State Road 25 (U.S. 27). The site is surrounded by Alligator Alley to the north; State Road 25 to the east, with a contemplated borrow canal to be constructed between State Road 25 and the project location, immediately adjacent to State Road 25; to the west by Florida Power and Light patrol road, with a borrow canal running north and south located west of the patrol road and Levee 37 further west of the borrow canal, this levee being maintained by the South Florida Water Management District. To the south of the project is an access road which grants access to the Florida Power and Light patrol road. The quarry which is to be dug on the acreage in question will not intersect either of the borrow canals referred to above. Upon completion, the pit area will consist of approximately twenty-two acres of open excavation approximately forty feet deep with a littoral zone constituted of sawgrass. At the conclusion of the project, all fill material that has been excavated will have been removed from the project site and the access road to the project site destroyed. The pit will be left full of water that has entered the pit at the excavation during the dredging. That water will be constituted primarily of groundwater located immediately below the surface in pockets found in the limestone fill material. The displacement of limerock will allow the groundwater to fill the void. Although the water which enters the excavation site will be primarily groundwater, the waters within its boundaries will eventually have the characteristics of surface waters due to the design of the activity being much like a natural pond. Approximately four thousand feet south of the project site is an abandoned rock quarry with an access road from State Road 25 and approximately two miles south of the project site is an active rock quarry operated by Rosen, Rosen and Tupler. The nature of the Rosen, Rosen and Tupler quarry is similar to that as contemplated by the Petitioner's plan. There are other rock quarries of similar nature located in the vicinity of the project site. The project site does not receive surface flows or sheet flows from adjacent properties due to the fact that the project site is surrounded by dykes and borrow canals which block surface flows or sheet flows from any adjacent properties. The surface water flow on the property is in a more or less southeasterly direction. The rainfall that occurs at the project site causes the project site to be inundated at times with standing water as deep as six or eight inches. This water will not exit the property except in times of high incidence of rain, when the water may overflow the Florida Power and Light access road and make entry into the borrow canal adjacent to State Road 25, gaining such access at the southeast of the project site. At present, part of the borrow canal east of the project site and adjacent to State Road 25 has been filled in. As stated before, this area will be replaced by a future excavation of a borrow canal in the area now covered. The surface water which stands on the project site normally percolates into the ground or evaporates into the atmosphere. The primary vegetation at the project site is sawgrass. The project: as contemplated would remove some of these grasses and attached heavy muck soils, but there would remain a sawgrass zone between the contemplated borrow canal located east of the project and the Levee 37 borrow canal located west of the project. The borrow canals located to the east and west of the project site flow south to the South New River Canal, which runs generally east and west. The waters collected in the South New River Canal are subject to being pumped through the pumping station S-9 which distributes water to the west or the water may be carried through the South New River Canal in an easterly direction, eventually entering the South New River, a natural waterway subject to navigation. The South New River is approximately twenty miles from the project site. The South New River empties into the Atlantic Ocean. Those waters which are pumped westerly through pumping station S-9 may enter other natural waterways and eventually the Gulf of Nexico by transportation through a series of artificial canals and natural water connections. Although the Petitioner does not intend to introduce contaminants at the proposed project site during the preparation stage; stage of excavation and stage of evacuation, the testimony concerning the project site and an active quarry of similar nature in the immediate vicinity, and other similar quarries, establishes that it could be reasonably expected that oils, greases and lead would be dispersed in the area of the quarry pit, the immediately adjacent wetlands and at times of high incidence of rainfall, into the borrow canals adjacent to the property. However, before the contaminants reach the borrow canals by overland sheet flow, they will be filtered out by the wetlands. The contamination into the pit would find its way into the Biscayne Aquifer, the Aquifer at the project site being only a foot or so beneath the surface., The introduction of contaminants into the Biscayne Aquifer at the project site will eventually lead to the direct mixing of those contaminants with portions of the Biscayne Aquifer adjacent to the project site, in particular west of the project site in the containment area which is part of the system of submerged lands of the state and to the borrow canal east of the project site. There is also the possibility of copper, zinc, iron, chromium, manganese, dieldrin and polychlorinated biphenyls contaminants being introduced into the pit (quarry). in association with the project, though this possibility is more remote than in the case of the substances previously mentioned and the possibility is so remote that it is not reasonably expected to occur. Therefore, these are not substances for which the Petitioner must do actual testing to show that they do not exceed water quality standards in order to establish necessary reasonable assurances. The facts presented did not give rise to even a potentiality for the presence of other regulated substances that might exceed applicable water quality standards, with the exception of phenols which are reported next. Phenolic-type compounds were found in the active and inactive quarry pits similar to the proposed installation These compounds as detected in the sample and reasonably expected at the project are naturally occurring phenomena and not the direct product of the mining activity. The mining will create turbid conditions and there will be fluctuations in dissolved oxygen concentrations and BOD values and changes in pH values in the pit. The above-referenced contamination and variations in values would be injurious to human health or welfare, animal and plant life and property and, as a consequence, interfere with the enjoyment of life and property, if found to exceed the Respondent's applicable water quality standards. The Petitioner, if allowed to carry out the project, has given specific reasonable assurance that it will not violate the Respondent's applicable water quality standards related to the turbidity, dissolved oxygen, BOD, lead, oils and greases, and pnenols. See Rule 17-3.05(2), Florida Administrative Code. Other substances-and conditions found in that subsection of the rule not being reasonably expected to occur, necessary reasonable assurance has been established for those. There will be no discharges of heated water. See Rule 17-3.05(3), Florida Administrative Code. The project site does not involve outstanding Florida waters within the meaning of Rules 17-3.041 and 17-4.242(1), Florida Administrative Code. Testimony offered in the course of the hearing shoes that in similar projects in terms of their location and purpose, the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, has at times disclaimed its jurisdiction to require a permit and at other times granted permits.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is currently engaged in widening State Road (SR) 5, the Overseas Highway, to four lanes on Marathon Key. To handle surface water runoff from a portion of the project, DOT received approval from the South Florida Water Management District for a surface water management system which included two retention ponds (west pond and east pond) to be located on Marathon Airport.1 On May 23, 1985, DOT filed an application with DER for authorization to construct four Class V, group five stormwater drainage wells within the retention ponds on Marathon Airport. DOT proposed to locate three wells within the west pond and one well within the east pond to comply with a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) request that water levels be minimized to deter the attraction of birds which could present a hazard to aircraft navigation. By letter dated August 12, 1985, DER forwarded to DOT permit number US44-104852, dated July 26, 1985, for construction of the subject wells. Upon its receipt of the permit, DOT let the contracts for the widening of SR 5; however, neither DER nor DOT published notice of DER's intent to issue the requested permit. On November 29, 1985, a few days after he received actual notice that the permit had been issued, Robert C. Ernst filed a request for hearing with DER contesting its issuance. Mr. Ernst owns a home which lies atop the groundwaters to be impacted by the subject permit and which abuts Dodge Lake, a Class III surface water body; Mr. Ernst uses the waters of Dodge Lake for swimming, fishing, and other recreational pursuits. On December 20, 1985, Mr. Ernst and others, on behalf of Neighbors for Clean Canals (NCC), filed a request for hearing challenging the same permit. NCC was alleged to be a neighborhood association, formed December 17, 1985, to represent the interests of property owners affected by the proposed project; however, no such proof was offered at hearing. The retention ponds proposed by DOT are designed to accommodate the first inch of stormwater runoff.2 Significantly, the first 1/2" of runoff from a highway system contains the bulk of pollutants. By retaining this runoff, and permitting it to evaporate or percolate through the soils underlying the retention ponds, any adverse impact to the ground waters is minimized. DOT's proposal to install four injection wells within the ponds will deprive them of their retention capability. These wells will, within a 12-20 hour period, inject the first 1/2" of runoff (over 1 million gallons) directly into the groundwaters. Therefore, evidence of the nature of the pollutants, the quality of the receiving waters, and the geologic and hydrologic qualities of the area are significant. Highway runoff contains high concentrations of pollutants ranging from toxic mutagenic and carcinogenic substances such as heavy metals (primarily lead and zinc), pesticides, and herbicides to oxygen consuming materials and solids which cause damages such as siltation and eutrophication. These pollutants, including oils, greases, and copper, can have significant adverse effects upon the quality of the receiving waters and the life forms it supports. Underlying the proposed retention ponds is an aquaclude which extends from the surface to a depth of 30-40 feet. This aquaclude, a hard layer formation with very poor percolation qualities, will preclude any waters injected below it from returning to the surface and will direct their flow laterally. Since the maximum depths of Dodge Lake and the 100th Street Canal are 13' and 21' respectively, injection of the stormwater runoff at 50', well below the existing aquaclude, provides reasonable assurances that these water bodies will not be adversely impacted by the proposed project. However, the impacts to the groundwater and other water bodies is not so clear. Other than sampling the groundwater to establish its character as Class III groundwater,3 DOT and DER did not perform any water quality analysis. Accordingly, the existing quality of the receiving groundwaters was not shown. Further, there was no showing of the hydrologic characteristics of the area. Therefore, there was no evidence of the mixing or dilution of the contaminants which would be injected, or of their ultimate point(s) of discharge into the surface waters surrounding Marathon Key.4 DOT and DER assert that "specific conditions" #4 and #5 attached to the subject permit will provide assurances that injection of the stormwater runoff will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. Those conditions provide: The following parameters shall be sampled at Well W-2 Florida Department of Transportation drawing sheet 3 of 5 and Well E-1 Florida Department of Transportation drawing sheet 4 of 5 and reported quarterly to the Department ninety (90) days following certification and placement of this facility in operation. The parameters to be sampled are: Napthalene, Lead and volatile organic compounds including: Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, Carbon Tetrachloride, Vinyl Chloride, 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane, 1,2- Dichloroethane, Benzene, and Ethylene Dibromide. The discharge authorized by this permit shall be consistent at all times with the water quality standards set forth in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Should conditions in the receiving stream warrant, the Permittee may be required by the Department to upgrade, reduce, or cease the discharge approved by this permit and adopt an alternative method of disposal within a reasonable period of time. Under specific condition #4, the ground waters will be sampled at one injection well within each of the retention ponds. Without evidence of the mixing and flow characteristics of the groundwater, the reliability of the proposed monitoring program is questionable since it was not shown where, transitionally or ultimately, the pollutants would settle. Absent such proof, there is no evidence that the wells are sited so as to detect any water quality violations. Therefore, specific conditions #4 and #5 do not provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings. Petitioners, Robert C. Ernst and Neighbors for Clean Canals (NCC), pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, contest the decision of DER to issue a permit to DOT to construct four Class v, group five-stormwater drainage wells. Pertinent to this proceeding, Section 120.57 provides: The provisions of this section apply in all proceedings in which the substantial interests of a party are determined by an agency. When standing is resisted, as it is in this proceeding, the burden is on the protestant to prove standing. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, v. Alice P., 367 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, does not attempt to define substantially affected persons. The Florida courts have, however, adopted the federal "injury-in-fact" and "zone of interest" tests governing standing. Montgomery v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 468 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA) 1985). Under this two-prong test, a person is substantially affected if he can demonstrate that he will suffer "injury-in- fact" which is of sufficient immediacy to entitle him to relief and the injury is of a type or nature which the proceeding is designed to protect (the "zone of interest"). Where, as here, an association institutes a proceeding on behalf of its members, it can be accorded standing only when it demonstrates that a substantial number of its members, although not necessarily a majority, are substantially affected by the proposed agency action, the nature of the injury is of a type which the proceeding is designed to protect: and, the relief requested is of a type appropriate for an association to receive on behalf of its members. See Florida Home Builders Assoc. v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982). Mr. Ernst has demonstrated his standing to maintain this action. His home lies atop the groundwaters to be impacted by the proposed project and he uses the waters proximate to the proposed wells which could be adversely impacted if the wells were not properly constructed or sited. NCC failed, however, to demonstrate its standing since it failed to offer any evidence that a substantial number of its members could be substantially affected by the proposed project or that the interest sought to be protected was within the association's general scope of interest and purpose. Although Mr. Ernst has demonstrated standing, DOT asserts that his petition was untimely since it was filed more than three months after DOT received its permit. DOT's assertion is without merit. It is established law that persons whose substantial interests may be affected by proposed agency action must be accorded a point of entry into the proceedings. See Capeletti Brothers, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 362 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Until accorded notice, actual or constructive, such person has not been offered a point of entry. Rule 17-103.150, F.A.C., provides a method to assure constructive notice is given to all substantially affected persons, and to limit the time within which a request for an administrative hearing may be filed. That rule provides that each person who filed an application for a DER permit may publish a notice of proposed agency action in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the activity will be located. If notice is published, a person whose substantial interests might be affected by the proposed action must file his request for hearing within 14 days of the date of publication. Significantly, the rule also provides: Since persons whose substantial interests are affected by a Department decision on a permit application may petition for an administrative proceeding within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notice and since, unless notice is given or published as prescribed in this rule, receipt of notice can occur at any time, the applicant or persons benefiting from the Department's action cannot justifiably rely on the finality of the Department's decision without the notice having been duly given or published. DOT elected not to publish notice under the provisions of Rule 17-103.150, F.A.C., and cannot justifiably rely on the finality of DER's decision. Mr. Ernst's petition for hearing, filed within a few days of his receipt of notice, was timely. 5 DER has jurisdiction over the permitting of the proposed four Class V, group five-stormwater drainage wells pursuant to Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-4 and 17-28, F.A.C. A party seeking approval to inject stormwater drainage into Class G-III water must provide reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards set forth in Rule 17-3.402(1), F.A.C. That rule provides: All ground water shall at all places and at all times be free from domestic, industrial, agricultural, or other man-induced non- thermal components of discharges in concentrations which, alone or in combination with other substances, or components of discharges (whether thermal or non-thermal): Are harmful to plants, animals, or organisms that are native to the soil and responsible for treatment or stabilization of the discharge relied upon by Department permits or Are carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, or toxic to human beings, unless specific criteria are established for such components in Rule 17-3.404: or Are acutely toxic to indigenous species of significance to the aquatic community within surface waters affected by the ground water at the point of contact with surface waters or Pose a serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare; or Create or constitute a nuisance or Impair the reasonable and beneficial use of adjacent waters. DOT has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed stormwater discharge will not cause or contribute to a violation of the groundwater standards set forth in Rule 17-3.402(1), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order: Dismissing the petition for hearing filed by Neighbors for Clean Canals, and Denying the issuance of permit number US44-104852 to the Department of Transportation. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1986.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD, or District) should issue a Modification to Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 36-00583- S-02, Application No. 050408-15 to Plantation Development, Ltd. (PDL), for construction and operation of a surface water management system serving a 78.11-acre condominium development known as Harbour Pointe at South Seas Resort, with discharge into wetlands adjacent to Pine Island Sound.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and arguments, the following facts are found: The Parties PDL, the applicant, is a limited partnership which is the successor to Mariner Group, Inc. (Mariner). SFWMD has jurisdiction over PDL's application, as amended, and has given notice of its intent to grant PDL's application, as amended, with certain conditions. Petitioners, CCA and SCCF, and Intervenor, CSWF, are Florida not-for-profit corporations that challenged the proposed ERP. Development and Permit History The property subject to PDL's application was part of approximately 310-acres on the northern end of Captiva Island in Lee County, Florida. Redfish Pass is to the immediate north, separating Captiva Island from North Captiva Island. Farther to the north is Cayo Costa Island, a large island to the south of Boca Grande Pass. Most of Cayo Costa is a State Park. To the south of Captiva Island is Sanibel Island, the site of the Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge. To the northeast of Sanibel Island and to the east of the rest of the string of barrier islands just mentioned is Pine Island Sound, which is to the west of Pine Island. Pine Island Sound is a state-designated Aquatic Preserve and Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). Pine Island Sound also is state-designated Class II water, but shell-fishing is prohibited in the immediate vicinity of Captiva Island. To the east of Pineland Island is Little Pine Island, which is surrounded by the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve, which includes the Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge. All of these features are part of the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary (CHNE). San Carlos Bay is farther south. The Lee County mainland is to the east of Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay. The 310-acre site was purchased by Mariner in 1972 for development of a resort that became known as the “South Seas Plantation.” Mariner's property included both Captiva Island proper and a smaller island immediately to the east across Bryant Bayou to the north and Chadwick Bayou farther to the south. Bryant Bayou has a narrower inlet from the north, and Chadwick Bayou has a narrower inlet to the south. Both inlets lead to Pine Island Sound. When Mariner purchased the property, it theoretically was possible to develop a maximum of 3,900 dwelling units on the 310-acre property, pursuant to Lee County zoning. In 1973, Mariner submitted an application to Lee County for the right to develop of 912 dwelling units on its 310 acres. PDL characterizes this as a "voluntary down-zoning" for the purpose of protecting the environment and unusual for a developer to do at that point in time. However, it is speculative how much more than 912 dwelling units would have been approved by Lee County at the time. The purpose of Mariner’s application to Lee County was to create a resort where recreational, single family, multi- family, and some commercial uses would coexist in a resort setting. The overall development plan was to construct the resort while conserving many of the property’s natural resources, including several miles of mangrove and Gulf of Mexico shoreline. Lee County approved the rezoning and the concept of the South Seas Plantation in 1973. Mariner's development began with Captiva Island proper and included a marina, golf course, and a variety of residential condominiums and single-family home sites. Some of the residential units were sold, and others remained in Mariner's ownership. Mariner marketed the rental of units at South Seas Plantation and served as rental agent for units not owned by Mariner. Development of the marina included dredging, and spoil was deposited on the northern tip of the smaller island, helping to create approximately 1.4 acres of upland there. In the 1950's or 1960's, a natural sand-and-shell berm along the eastern shore of the smaller island was built up and maintained by addition of fill material to create a two-track sand/shell road, which was used for vehicular access to the northern tip via an east-west road that divided the smaller island roughly in half and connected it to Captiva Island proper and the main road at South Seas Plantation. At a later point in time, the east-west portion of the road was paved for better access to a drinking water plant, a wastewater treatment plant, and a helicopter pad used by the Lee County Mosquito Control District. In 1985, Mariner received from SFWMD a “Master Stormwater Permit” for its entire development (the 1985 Permit). At that time, SFWMD did not regulate wetland impacts, only surface water management systems. The Department of Environmental Regulation regulated wetland impacts through its dredge and fill permit program, and there was no evidence relating to any dredge and fill permitting on the property. The 1985 Permit was for surface water management systems for construction in uplands on the property. No surface water management systems were needed or permitted in any wetlands. The 1985 Permit included a surface water management system for an 18-unit hotel on the spoil uplands of the northern tip of the smaller island. Permit drawings showed plans for a golf course on much of the remainder of the smaller island, which consisted mostly of wetlands. Access to the facilities was envisioned to be by water taxi, with emergency access via the utility and sand/shell road. Together, the hotel and golf course was to become a part of the resort known as Harbour Pointe. The 1985 Permit was modified several times in the years since its initial issuance, during which time Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, was amended to give SFWMD authority to regulate activities in waters and wetlands. However, until the pending application, none of the modifications had wetland impacts. In 1998, Mariner negotiated the sale of ten resort properties it owned in Florida, including South Seas Plantation, to Capstar, which later became Meristar S.S. Plantation Co., LLC (Meristar). Meristar was a real estate investment trust which specialized in hotels. Because it was not in the development business, Meristar was not interested in purchasing the as-yet undeveloped Harbour Pointe portion of South Seas Plantation, or Mariner's remaining development rights. As a result, Meristar purchased all the developed land on South Seas Plantation but not the approximately 78 acres of undeveloped land which is the subject of the pending application, or any of Mariner's development rights. Thus, after the sale of South Seas Plantation, Mariner retained its development rights and the 78 acres of undeveloped land, which are the subject of PDL's application. In 2002, Lee County issued an Administrative Interpretation which clarified that those development rights consisted of a maximum of 35 more residential units. Eleven units subsequently were built, leaving a maximum of 24 residential units when PDL filed its application in this case. The 78-acre Harbour Pointe site consists of mangrove wetlands, privately owned submerged lands, the 1.4-acre upland area at the northern tip of Harbour Pointe and another 1.4 acres of upland, which contain a Calusa Indian mound, known as the Chadwick Mound for its location west of Chadwick Bayou. While agreements between Meristar and PDL contemplate that PDL's subsequent development at Harbour Pointe would be marketed as part of the South Seas Resort and share some amenities and services, the parcels which comprise the Harbour Pointe development are the only undeveloped lands PDL owns or controls. PDL has no contractual or other legal right to develop on property owned by Meristar. Because it was modified several times since issuance, the 1985 Permit has not expired. However, Harbour Pointe never was constructed, and that part of the 1985 Permit expired in that Mariner lost its entitlement to proceed with construction. Instead, development of Harbour Pointe would require a permit modification under the new laws and rules, which included the regulation of wetland impacts. The Application and Proposed ERP In October 2003, PDL applied to SFWMD to further modify the 1985 Permit for construction of a water taxi dock for access to Harbour Pointe. After being informed by SFWMD that modifications to the 1985 Permit for development of Harbour Pointe would be reviewed under current laws and regulations, PDL withdrew the application. In April 2005 PDL applied for modification of the 1985 Permit to construct six 9,500 square-foot, four-plex condominium buildings (each two stories over parking, and accommodating units having 3,600-3,800 square feet of air-conditioned living space), a pool and spa, a tennis court, an access road, a filter marsh and surface water management facilities. Additionally, the site plan deleted all boat docks, except for a single water taxi slip and possibly a dock for launching kayaks and canoes and proposed a drawbridge across the inlet to Bryant Bayou to connect the project site to the South Seas Resort and eliminate the need for the emergency access road on the smaller island. This application described a development site of 7.4 acres, which included 4.8 acres of direct impacts to (i.e., destruction and fill of) mangroves and .1 acre of shading impacts from construction of the drawbridge. The proposed mitigation for the mangrove impacts included: restoration (by removal and replanting) of .6 acre of the north-south sand/shell road, with resulting enhancement of the adjacent preserved mangrove wetlands through improved hydrologic connection across the former shell/sand road and improved tidal connection to Pine Island Sound to the east; and preservation of the rest of PDL's property. The preserved areas would include: approximately 36 acres of mangrove wetlands adjacent to and south of the impacted wetlands (included the road to be restored) (Parcel A); 24.5 acres of mangrove wetlands south of the utility road and east of the narrow inlet to Chadwick Bayou (Parcel B); 9.3 acres of mangrove wetlands (7.9 acres) and tropical hardwoods (1.4 acres, which includes the Chadwick Mound), south of the utility road and west of the inlet to Chadwick Bayou, (Parcel C); .9 acre of mangrove wetlands to the west of Parcel C and the South Seas Resort main road (Parcel D); and .8 acre of mangrove wetlands separated from Parcel A by Bryant Bayou and adjacent to the South Seas Resort main road. A monitoring program lasting at least five years was offered to ensure success of the restoration and mitigation proposal. The application itself incorporated some reduction and elimination of wetland impacts. The total site consists of five separate tax parcels which could be developed into a number of single-family home sites. Such a development plan would have greater direct impacts than the proposed project and would require the shell/sand road to be significantly widened to meet current code requirements. By using the bridge as access, .11 acre of wetlands would be disturbed, as compared to 3.9 acres of total impact that would occur because of the widening the road. This approach results in the entire project causing less wetland impact than would occur from the use of the road alone. After the application was filed, PDL responded to two written requests for additional information and several other questions raised during meetings, phone conversations, and email exchanges with one or more SFWMD staff members. During this process, the application was amended. The tennis court was eliminated, and the filter marsh was replaced by a five dry detention ponds. In addition, the resulting development was concentrated more into the northern tip of the island to reduce and eliminate the greater secondary impacts (from more "edge effect") to the preserved wetlands to be expected from a more linear site plan. These changes reduced the footprint of the proposed project to 5.24 acres, the building size to 6,400 square feet each, the residential unit size to 2,400 to 2,600 square feet each, and wetland impacts to 2.98 acres, plus .11 acre of shading impacts from construction of the drawbridge. In addition, since the project was more concentrated at the northern tip, another tenth of an acre of the sand/shell road was to be restored. A conservation easement was offered for the 73.31 acres to be preserved, including 71.10 acres of wetlands, in Parcels A through E. PDL also offered to purchase .11 credits of offsite mitigation from the Little Pine Island Wetland Mitigation Bank (LPIWMB). On February 2, 2006, SFWMD's staff recommended approval of the amended application with 19 standard general conditions and 30 special conditions. Some of the special conditions in the Staff Report addressed prevention of erosion, shoaling, silt, turbidity, and water quality problems during construction or operation; remediation of any such problems not prevented; and restoration of any temporary wetland impacts. A pre-construction meeting was required to discuss construction methods, including construction dewatering. Although PDL indicated that dewatering would not be necessary for construction of the project, the Staff Report recommended that a dewatering plan be submitted before any dewatering occurred and noted that PDL would have to obtain all necessary Water Use authorizations, unless the work qualified for a No-Notice Short-Term Dewatering permit pursuant to Rule 40E- 20.302(3) or is exempt pursuant to Rule 40E-2.051.1 On February 8, 2006, SFWMD's Governing Board gave notice of its intent to approve the amended application with two additional conditions that were added to the Staff Report: PDL was required to apply for and receive a permit modification for the roadway necessary to access the project (i.e., the road leading from the South Seas Resort main road to the proposed drawbridge), and the applicant for the road to the drawbridge was required to document that proposed construction was consistent with the design of the master surface water management system, including land use and site grading assumptions; and a perpetual maintenance program for restored and preserved areas, including removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation in excess of five percent of total cover between regular maintenance activities, or such vegetation dominating any one section, was required to ensure integrity and viability. The parties interpreted the first of the two additional conditions to mean that construction access to build the project would be via the new roadway and drawbridge. On May 30, 2006, to address certain issues raised by the pending challenge to SFWMD's intended action, PDL further amended the application to substitute two wet retention ponds and three dry retention ponds for the five dry detention ponds and to make associated minor changes to the proposed surface water management system's water quality treatment methods to further reduce water quality impacts from the discharge of the system into the adjacent preserved wetlands. In addition, in view of disagreements among the parties as to the ability of PDL's onsite mitigation proposal to offset wetland impacts, PDL offered to increase offsite mitigation by purchasing as many additional credits from the LPIWMB as necessary to completely offset wetland impacts, as determined by the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM). Water Quantity Impacts Pursuant to Rule 40E-4.301(1), an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property; will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Section 6.0 of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District (BOR), entitled Water Quantity Criteria, outlines the criteria that the applicant must meet for water quality at the project site. As outlined in BOR Section 6.2, the off-site discharge is limited to rates not causing adverse impacts to existing off- site properties. The proposed surface water management system consists of a series of swales, dry retention, and then a wet retention system with an outfall into the areas to the south. Ordinarily, stormwater runoff eventually will be absorbed into the ground. Any discharge associated with the system, typically only in conjunction with major rain events, will flow into a preserved wetland that will be hydrologically connected to Bryant Bayou and Pine Island Sound. As outlined in BOR Section 6.2, the off-site discharge rate is limited to historic discharge rates. As required by BOR Section 6.3, a storm event of 3-day duration and 25-year return frequency is used in computing off- site discharge rates. As required by BOR Section 6.4, building floors must be at or above the 100-year flood elevations. PDL conducted a hydrologic analysis of the existing condition of the property, analyzed the runoff patterns that would result during the 25-year rainfall event and then compared the development plan hydrologic analysis to the existing condition. The conclusion was that the development plan would not adversely affect offsite area. PDL analyzed a series of storm conditions for the protection of road elevations and the protection of finished floors. There are no off-site areas that contribute to runoff through this piece of property. The proposed system will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to waters and adjacent lands, flooding to onsite or offsite properties, or adversely impact existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Water Quality Impacts Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters so that State water quality standards will not be violated. BOR Section 5.0 is entitled Water Quality Criteria. BOR Section 5.1 states that projects shall be designed and operated so that offsite discharges will meet State water quality standards. BOR Section 5.2.1 requires that either retention or detention, or both retention and detention be provided in the overall system in one of the following three ways or equivalent combinations thereof: Wet detention volume shall be provided for the first inch of runoff from the developed project, or the total runoff of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, whichever is greater. Dry detention volume shall be provided equal to 75 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. Retention volume shall be provided equal to 50 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. Retention volume included in flood protection calculations requires a guarantee of long term operation and maintenance of system bleed-down ability. BOR Section 5.9 states that all new drainage projects will be evaluated based on the ability of the system to prevent degradation of receiving water and the ability to conform to State water quality standards. In the design of the system, PDL proposed a series of best management practices. The first is to treat runoff through grassed swale areas adjacent to buildings and some of the internal roadways. From there, the water would discharge through a series of dry retention areas where there would be further removal and treatment. The water would discharge through a proposed wet retention area prior to outfall under more significant rainfall events, southward into the preserved wetland area. Because of the hydrological connection from there to Bryant Bayou and Pine Island Sound, a more detailed evaluation was conducted. PDL's detailed evaluation included source control measures. The first one is a construction pollution prevention plan. PDL also proposed an urban storm water management plan. PDL is going to provide guidance to property owners about pesticide and fertilizer management control. The Applicant also submitted a street-sweeping proposal. The design of the system incorporates an additional 50 percent water quality treatment volume, over and above the requirements of the BOR. The wet retention system, located to the north of the proposed outfall structure, incorporates submerged aquatic vegetation. That is not a requirement of the District. It is an extra measure that will remove additional levels of pollutants prior to outfall. PDL proposed an urban stormwater management plan. The plan requires annual inspection of the water management facilities, and it must be documented that the system is functioning as originally designed and built. The stormwater management system is capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of functioning as proposed. The stormwater management system satisfies the District's water quality criteria. Petitioners and Intervenor criticized the method used by PDL's water quality consultant, Dr. Harvey Harper, for projecting and evaluating water quality impacts to be expected from PDL's stormwater management design. They contended that the so-called "Harper method" has been criticized by other experts, none of whom testified. Dr. Harper ably defended himself against the criticism leveled at him. He testified that most if not all of the components he has incorporated into his evaluation method are not new but rather have been accepted and used by experts in his field for years. He also explained that he refined his evaluation method in response to some early criticism and that the method he used in this case has been peer-reviewed and accepted by the Department of Environmental Protection for evaluation of stormwater design criteria. While some of the assumptions incorporated in his evaluation method are simple averages of a relatively small samples, and sometimes averages of averages, Dr. Harper was confident in the ability of his method to accurately evaluate the expected water quality impacts from PDL's system. While there is potential for error in any projection, Dr. Harper's evaluation provided reasonable assurances that utilization of PDL's proposed stormwater management and treatment method will not result in violation of any State water quality standards or significantly degrade the water quality of Bryant Bayou or Pine Island Sound. Value of Wetland and Surface Water Functions In general, as part of the CHNE, the mangrove wetlands to be impacted by the proposed ERP are very important. The CHNE Coast Conservation Management Plan identifies three major threats to the estuary and local ecosystem: fish and wildlife habitat loss; water quality degradation; and hydrological alteration. The plan calls for the preservation of mangroves within the CHNE. A wide array of wildlife uses the habitat in the vicinity of the mangrove wetlands to be impacted. The site is in an important coastal fly-way for migratory birds, including numerous species of waterfowl and songbirds that migrate across the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico to and from South and Central America. The project area also provides habitat for several listed wildlife species, including the American crocodile, wood stork, and West Indian manatee. The mangrove wetlands that will be impacted directly and indirectly by the proposed ERP are in relatively good condition and are very important due primarily to their location near Redfish Pass at the northern end of Captiva Island and to their relationship to the rest of the relatively large area of contiguous and relatively undisturbed wetlands in Parcels A through E. These attributes make them especially important as a nursery ground for several valuable fish species. Existing impacts attributable to the spoil and other disturbances in the adjacent uplands, the northernmost extent of the sand/shell road, and the South Seas Plantation/Resort development to the west across the inlet to Bryant Bayou keep these impacted wetlands from being of the very highest quality. Clearly, and obviously, the project will destroy and fill 2.98 acres of these wetlands. Indirect (secondary) impacts to the adjacent preserved wetlands will result from alteration of hydrology of the 2.98 acres of directly impacted wetlands. Instead of sheet-flowing across the uplands on the northern tip of Harbour Pointe into those wetlands, surface water on the 5.24- acre development project will be directed into a series of swales, to the dry retention ponds, and to the wet retention ponds with an outfall to the adjacent preserved wetlands to the south. Secondary impacts from the Harbour Pointe project will be similar to the existing secondary impacts to the 2.98 acres attributable to the adjacent spoil and the South Seas Plantation/Resort development, if not somewhat greater due to the absence of any buffer like the inlet. On the other hand, PDL's mitigation proposal will restore .7 acre of wetlands where the northern end of the north- south sand/shell road now exists. Eventually, the restored wetland would be expected to become an extension of the existing, adjacent red and basin black mangrove forest. In addition, the resulting improved hydrologic connection to Pine Island Sound will enhance the value of functions in the preserved wetlands, including possibly expanding the existing fish nursery and making it accessible to fish larvae and juvenile fish entering from the east as well as from the west via Bryant Bayou. There was much debate during the hearing as to whether the sand/shell road is natural or man-made and whether it is reducing what otherwise would be the natural tidal and hydrologic connection between the wetlands to the west of the road and Pine Island Sound. As indicated, a prior owner added fill material to the natural sand and shell berm in the 1950's and 1960's to create better vehicular access. See Finding 9, supra. The evidence was reasonably persuasive that those man-made changes have altered hydrology and tidal connection to some extent and that the restoration project will enhance the value and functions of the preserved wetlands to some extent. Impacts to the value of wetland and surface water functions, and corresponding mitigation for impacts, are required to be assessed using UMAM. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-345.100. While the mitigation assessment method might be uniform, its application and results are not. Three different experts used UMAM with differing results. SFWMD's expert, Mr. Cronyn, and PDL's consultants, Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc. (KLECE), conferred after their initial assessments, resulting in changed results by both (as well as correction of errors in initial scoring by Mr. Cronyn.) Dave Ceilley, an expert for Petitioners and Intervenor, scored the 2.98 acre impact area significantly higher in its current state than the final score of either Mr. Cronyn or KLECE, resulting in a higher functional loss from its destruction and filling. He also gave no credit for restoration of the sand/shell road, in contrast to KLECE and Mr. Cronyn, and scored PDL's mitigation proposal as it affected 36.6 acres of preserved wetlands (essentially, Parcel A) as a functional loss instead of a functional gain, as scored by KLECE and Mr. Cronyn. Mr. Ceilley also scored PDL's mitigation proposal as it affected 24.5 acres of preserved wetlands (Parcel B) as a functional loss instead of a functional gain, as scored by KLECE and Mr. Cronyn. Finally, he gave no credit for preservation of Parcels A through E via a conservation easement because he was under the mistaken impression that the land already was under a conservation easement in favor of Lee County. (Actually, PDL had agreed to preserve 65 acres of mangrove forest in return for the right to develop Harbour Pointe, although a conservation easement actually was imposed on only about six acres. Although not identified, the 65 acres probably would have included the preserved wetlands in the proposed ERP.) Mr. Cronyn gave credit for preservation of Parcels B through E. KLECE did not claim credit, because KLECE did not think it was necessary, but KLECE accepts Mr. Cronyn's assessment of those parcels. Mr. Ceilley's recent onsite field work was extremely limited, and much of his assessment was based general knowledge of the area and dated (14-year old) onsite field work. In addition, this was the first "real-life" UMAM assessment performed by Mr. Ceilley. His only other use of UMAM was for practice in training. Finally, his assessment was entirely independent without the input of any other consultants to aid him. In contrast, both KLECE and Mr. Cronyn had extensive prior experience using UMAM. In addition, KLECE functioned as a three- man team in performing its UMAM assessments and talked out any initial discrepancies and disagreements (albeit with Mr. Erwin being the final arbiter). KLECE and Mr. Cronyn also consulted with one another, as well as experts in other related fields before finalizing their respective UMAM assessments. KLECE was able to draw on field work conducted during over 200 man-hours onsite in recent years. While KLECE was the retained consultant and agent for the applicant in this case, Mr. Ceilley conceded that Mr. Erwin adheres to high ethical standards. Petitioners and Intervenor were critical of credit given in the UMAM assessments performed by Mr. Cronyn for preservation of Parcels B through E. (KLECE did not claim credit for their preservation in its UMAM assessment.) Petitioners and Intervenor contend that PDL already has agreed to preserve the wetlands in those parcels in return for the ability to utilize the remaining 24 residential units of development rights at Harbour Pointe and that development of the Chadwick Mound is unlikely. Actually, as found, PDL's agreement with the County only specified six of the 65 acres of wetlands to be preserved. Besides, the preserved wetlands in the proposed ERP would implement the agreement with the County. As for the Chadwick Mound, preservation without the proposed ERP is not a certainty, although residential development there would be difficult now that its existence is common knowledge. In any event, the relative unlikelihood of development in Parcels A through E, especially after development of 24 units at Harbour Pointe, was taken into consideration by Mr. Cronyn in determining the amount of credit to be given for their preservation. Taking all the evidence into account, Mr. Cronyn's UMAM assessment of the value of wetland functions with and without the proposed ERP are accepted. According to his assessment, the proposed ERP will result in a functional loss of .34 functional units, meaning an equivalent amount of mitigation credit would have to be purchased from the LPIWMB to offset wetland impacts. Based on the functional assessment used to permit that mitigation bank, approximately an additional .9 of a mitigation bank credit would be needed, in addition to the .11 already offered. The evidence as to cumulative impacts did not clearly define the pertinent drainage basin. Logically, the pertinent drainage basin either would encompass all land draining to surface waters connected to Pine Island Sound, which would include Little Pine Island, or would be limited to the land that is subject to the proposed ERP. If the former, all offsetting mitigation would be within the same drainage basin. If the latter, there would be no cumulative impacts, since the proposed ERP would complete all development. Reduction and Elimination of Wetland Impacts According to BOR Section 4.2.1.1, if a proposed surface water management system will result in adverse impacts to wetland or other surface water functions such that it does not meet the requirements of Sections 4.2.2 through 4.2.3.7, the District must consider whether the applicant has implemented practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate such adverse impacts. The term "modification" does not mean not implementing the system in some form, or requiring a project that is significantly different in type or function, such as a commercial project instead of a residential project. Elimination and reduction also does not require an applicant to suffer extreme and disproportionate hardship--for example, having to construct a ten mile-long bridge to avoid half an acre of wetland impacts. However, Anita Bain, SFWMD's director of ERP regulation, agreed that, in interpreting and applying BOR Section 4.2.1.1, "the more important a wetland is the greater extent you would require elimination and reduction of impact." As reflected in Findings 17-19, supra, PDL explored several design modifications in order to reduce and eliminate impacts to wetland and other surface water functions. However, several options for further reducing and eliminating wetland impacts were declined. PDL declined to eliminate the swimming pool and move one or more buildings to the pool's location at the extreme northern tip of Harbour Pointe because that would not be a practicable means of reducing the Harbour Pointe footprint. First, the undisputed testimony was that a residential building could not be sited as close to the water's edge as a swimming pool could. Second, because it would block the view from some of Meristar's residential properties, and Meristar has the legal right to approve or disapprove PDL's development on Harbour Pointe. PDL declined to reduce the number of buildings because, without also reducing the number and/or size of the residential units, reducing the number of buildings would make it difficult if not impossible to accommodate all cul-de-sacs required by Lee County for use by emergency vehicles and meet parking needs beneath the buildings, as proposed. (In addition, it would reduce the number of prime corner residential units, which are more marketable and profitable.) PDL declined to further reduce unit size because a further reduction to 2,000 square feet would only reduce the footprint of the six proposed buildings by a total of 5,000 square feet--less than a ninth of an acre. Reducing unit size to much less than 2,000 square feet would make it difficult if not impossible to market the condos as "luxury" units, which is what PDL says "the market" is demanding at this time (and also what PDL would prefer, since it would maximize PDL's profits for the units.) But it was not proven that smaller condos could not be sold at a reasonable profit. PDL declined to reduce the number of condo units at Harbour Pointe (while maintaining the conservation easement on the remainder of PDL's acreage, which would not allow PDL to develop all of the 24 dwelling units it wants to develop and is entitled to develop on its 78 acres, according to Lee County). However, it was not proven that such an option for further reducing and eliminating wetland impacts would not be technically feasible, would endanger lives or property, or would not be economically viable. With respect to economic viability, SFWMD generally does not examine financial statements or profit-and-loss pro formas as part of an analysis of a site plan's economic viability. This type of information is rarely provided by an applicant, and SFWMD does not ask for it. As usual, SFWMD's reduction and elimination analysis in this case was conducted without the benefit of such information. Rather, when PDL represented that any reduction in the number of units would not be economically viable, SFWMD accepted the representation, judging that PDL had done enough elimination and reduction based on the amount of wetland impacts compared to the amount of wetlands preserved, in comparison with other projects SFWMD has evaluated. As Ms. Bain understands it, "it's almost like we know it when we see it; in that, you wouldn't ask an applicant to build a ten-mile bridge to avoid a half an acre wetland impact, so something that's so extreme that's obvious, rather than how much profit would a particular applicant make on a particular project." Although SFWMD did not inquire further into the economic viability of modifications to reduce and eliminate wetland and surface water impacts, Petitioners and Intervenor raised the issue and discovered some profit-and-loss pro formas that were presented and addressed during the hearing. A pro forma prepared in August 2003 projected a profit of $2.79 million for the first 8 of 12 units and an additional $1.72 million profit on the next four units (taking into account construction of a drawbridge and road to the west at a cost of $1.8 million). This would result in a total profit of $4.51 million, less $800,000 for a reserve to pay for maintenance of the drawbridge (which PDL said was required under timeshare laws). Another pro forma prepared in February 2004 projected profits of $11.99 million on 16 "big-sized" units (3,000 square feet), $11.81 million on 20 "mid-sized" units (2,200 square feet), and $13.43 million on 24 "mixed-size" units (16 "mid- sized" and 8 "small-sized" at 1,850 square feet), all taking into account the construction of the drawbridge and road at a cost of $1.8 million. After production of the earlier pro formas during discovery in this case, PDL prepared a pro forma on June 7, 2006. The 2006 pro forma projected net profit to be $4.9 million, before investment in the property. However, PFL did not make its investment in the property part of the evidence in the case. In addition, Petitioners and Intervenor questioned the validity of the 2006 pro forma. PDL answered some of the questions better than others. To arrive at the projected net profit, PDL projected significantly (33%) higher construction costs overall. The cost of the drawbridge and road to the west was projected to increase from $1.8 million to $2.5 million. Based on its experience, PDL attributed the increase in part to the effect of rebuilding activity after Hurricane Charlie and in part to the effect of Sanibel Causeway construction (both increased overweight charges and limitations on when construction vehicles could cross the causeway, resulting construction work having to be done at night, at a significantly higher cost). At the hearing, PDL did not present any up-to-date market surveys or other supporting information on construction costs, and the Sanibel Causeway construction is expected to be completed before construction on the Harbour Pointe project would begin. In addition, without a full enough explanation, PDL replaced the bridge operation and maintenance reserve of $800,000 with an unspecified bridge reserve fund of $2 million. On the revenue side of the 2006 pro forma, gross sales of $1.9 million per unit were projected, which is less than PDL was projecting per square foot in February 2004, despite the assumed increased construction costs. PDL also attributes this to the effects of Hurricane Charlie. Again, there were no market surveys or other information to support the pricing assumptions. Besides predicting lower price potential, the 2006 pro forma deducts a pricing contingency of $2.3 million. PDL did not calculate or present evidence on whether it could make a profit building and selling 16 or 20 units, thereby eliminating a building or two (and perhaps some road and stormwater facility requirements) from the project's footprint. The absence of that kind of evidence, combined with the unanswered questions about the 2006 pro forma for the maximum number of units PDL possibly can build, constituted a failure to give reasonable assurance that wetland and surface water impacts would be reduced and eliminated by design modifications to the extent practicable, especially given the very high importance of the wetlands being impacted. Public Interest Test An ERP applicant who proposes to construct a system located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters must provide reasonable assurances that the project will “not be contrary to the public interest, or if such an activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water, that the activity will be clearly in the public interest.” § 373.414(1)(a), Fla. Stat.; Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a); and SFWMD BOR Section 4.2.3. This is known as the “Public Interest Test,” and is determined by balancing seven criteria, which need not be weighted equally. See Lott v. City of Deltona and SJRWMD, DOAH Case Nos. 05-3662 and 05-3664, 2006 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 106 (DOAH 2006). The Public Interest criteria are as follows: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. There are no property owners adjacent to the site, and the closest property owners to the site are located across the inlet which connects Bryant Bayou to Pine Island Sound. While mangrove wetlands generally provide maximum protection from hurricanes, it does not appear from the evidence that existing conditions would provide appreciably more protection that the conditions contemplated by the proposed ERP. Otherwise, the project would not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, or property of others. Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. The proposed ERP would impact (fill and destroy) 2.98 acres of very important, high quality mangrove wetlands. Even with the restoration or creation of .7 acre of probable former wetlands and improvements in the hydrologic connection of the 36.5-acre preserved wetland (Parcel A) to Pine Island Sound, the proposed ERP probably will have a negative effect on the conservation of fish and wildlife, including listed species. However, the negative effect would not be considered "adverse" if the elimination and reduction requirements of BOR 4.2.1.1 are met. Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The proposed drawbridge will be constructed over the inlet connecting Bryant Bayou with Pine Island Sound, a distance of approximately 65 feet. Boaters use the inlet for navigation. However, by its nature, a drawbridge allows for and not adversely affect navigation. The proposed ERP does not contain specifics on operation of the drawbridge, but PDL's consultant, Mr. Erwin, testified that there would be no adverse effect on navigation, assuming that the bridge would remain in the open position between use for crossings by road. The drawbridge would not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The question whether the proposed ERP will adversely affect fishing or recreational values is informed by both the UMAM functional assessment and the reduction and elimination analysis. If impacts to wetlands and surface waters are reduced and eliminated, and offset by mitigation, there should be no significant adverse effects on fishing and recreational values. Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature. The proposed development is permanent in nature. vi. Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, Florida Statutes. There are no significant archaeological resources on the Harbour Pointe project site. Although shell scatter left by the Calusa Indians has been found on Parcel A, they have been evaluated in the permit application process by Corbett Torrence, an archeologist, and found to be of limited historical or archaeological value. The reduced scope of the project avoids most of these areas. The proposed ERP will, however, enhance significant archaeological resources by placing a conservation easement on Parcel C, which is the site of the Chadwick Mound, one of the largest Calusa Indian mounds in Lee County. Further studies of this site could lead to a much better understanding of the Calusa culture. This Indian mound is a very valuable historical treasure, and its protection through inclusion in a conservation easement is very much in the public interest. vii. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. This subject also was considered in the reduction and elimination analysis and in the UMAM functional assessment. As in the Findings the current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by the areas affected by the proposed activity are very valuable. That is why the reduction and elimination analysis is particularly important in this case. Assuming appropriate reduction and elimination, mitigation according to the UMAM assessment can offset unavoidable impacts to the functions performed by the areas affected by the proposed activity. Standing of CCA, SCCF, and CSWF CCA, SCCF, and CSWF each has at least 25 current members residing within Lee County and was formed at least one year prior to the date of the filing of PDL's application. CCA's mission statement includes protection of "our residents' safety, the island ecology, and the unique island ambience . . . ." CCA also is dedicated to "preserving and expanding, where possible, the amount of native vegetation on Captive Island" and preservation of natural resources and wildlife habitat on and around Sanibel and Captiva Islands. SCCF's mission is the preservation of natural resources and wildlife habitat on and around Sanibel and Captiva. It manages just over 1,800 acres of preserved lands, including mangrove forest habitat similar to that being proposed for development by PDL. Management activities involve invasive non- native plant control, surface water management, prescribed burning, native plant habitat restoration and wildlife monitoring. CSWF's purpose is to sustain and protect the natural environment of Southwest Florida through policy advocacy, research, land acquisition and other lawful means. Its four core programs are: environmental education; scientific research; wildlife rehabilitation; and environmental policy. Of CCA's 464 members, approximately 115 live within the boundaries of South Seas Plantation/Resort. Approximately 277 of SCCF's 3,156 members live on Captiva Island, and 40 live within the boundaries of South Seas Plantation/Resort. The members of CCA and SCCF who own property on Captiva Island rely on the mangrove systems for protection from storms. A substantial number of the Captiva Island residents and the other members of CCA and SCCF engage in recreational activities in the vicinity of PDL's property, including boating, fishing, bird-watching, wildlife observation, and nature study that would be adversely affected by significant water quality and wetland impacts from the proposed ERP. CSWF has 5,600 family memberships, approximately 400 in Lee County, and 14 on Sanibel. No members live on Captiva Island. There was no evidence as to how many of CSWF's members use the natural resources in the vicinity of the proposed ERP for recreational purposes or otherwise would be affected if there are water quality and wetland impacts from the proposed ERP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the proposed ERP be denied; however, if wetland and surface water impacts are reduced and eliminated to the extent practicable, the proposed ERP should be issued with the additional conditions, as represented by PDL's witnesses: that the proposed drawbridge be left drawn except when in use for road access; that construction access be via the proposed drawbridge only; and that there be no construction dewatering. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th of November, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Lake Worth Drainage District requested a variance from the provisions of Rule 17-3.121(13) , Florida Administrative Code, related to dissolved oxygen parameters which would be involved in the installation of a canal known as the S-9 Canal to be located in Palm Beach County, Florida. That request was met by the Department of Environmental Regulation's Statement of Intent to Deny, leading to a request for formal hearing filed by Petitioner with the Department on May 26, 1983. On June 1, 1983, the Department requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing in that matter. The variance request became D.O.A.H. Case No. 83-1741. Contemporaneous with the variance request that was pending before the Department of Environmental Regulation, was petitioner's request for necessary construction permits to install the S-9 Canal. Again, the Petitioner was informed of the agency's intent to deny that permit request. As a consequence, Petitioner requested a formal hearing to question the Department's policy decision. That request for formal hearing was made on June 23, 1983. Effective July 1, 1983, the Department asked the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing related to that permit request. The case related to the dredge and fill permit is D.O.A.H. Case No. 63-2132. WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS In the final hearing, petitioner presented the testimony of Richard Wheeliahn, Assistant Manager for Lake Worth Drainage District; John Adams, General Counsel for Lake Worth Drainage District; Mike Slaton, supervisory biologist with the United States Corp. of Engineers; William Winters, Lake Worth Drainage District's in-house engineer; Rebecca Serra, South Florida Water Management District's Water Management Engineer, who was accepted as an expert in water management engineering; Raleigh Griffis, Agricultural Agent with the United States Department of Agriculture, accepted as an expert in the agricultural practices found within the area of the proposed S-9 Canal; William E. Hill, Consulting Engineer for Petitioner, who was accepted as an expert in civil engineering and drainage design; and Robert D. Blackburn, consultant to Lake Worth Drainage District, accepted as an expert in freshwater ecology to include water quality and biology. Respondent called as witnesses Dan Garlick, Environmental Specialist for the Department of Environmental Regulation, accepted as expert in dredge and fill matters; Keith McCarron, Environmental Specialist for the Southeast Branch of the Department of Environmental Regulation, accepted as an expert in dredge and fill matters and Helen Setchfield, Technical Assistant to the Department's Director of the Division of Environmental Permitting. In addition, Richard L. Miller, Rebecca Butts, Francis T. Kuschell, Donald King and Dan alley were public witnesses in favor of the proposed project. Rosa Druando and Sherry Cummings were public witnesses opposed to the project. Petitioner offered 45 exhibits which have been received. Respondent introduced two exhibits which were admitted. The public offered two composite exhibits which were admitted. SPECIFIC FACTS Lake Worth Drainage District is a governmental entity created by the Florida Legislature. The District's function is that of the control of water supply and elevation related to lands within its jurisdiction. Those areas in dispute in the present case are within that jurisdictional ambit. In this instance, Lake Worth Drainage District has proposed the construction of a drainage facility involving dredging and filling of approximately 45,000 cubic yards of material. In particular, Petitioner seeks necessary permits from Respondent to construct a canal known as the S-9 Canal, whose purpose would be to transport the flow of water from an agricultural operation north of the canal site. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 depicts the area in question with the north- south orange tape representing an unnamed drainage ditch or canal and the blue tape showing the proposed S-9 connecting it to the east-west orange tape line which is L23W. The primary type of water expected in the canal is stormwater; however, surface and groundwater will also be in the canal system at times. The agricultural operation is capable of discharging at a rate which would utilize 145 CFS of the potential capacity of the canal system contemplated for construction which ultimate capacity is 170 CFS. The proposed canal by its connection of the existing agricultural drainage ditch or canal and L23W, becomes part of a water transport system flowing to the Atlantic Ocean through the South Florida Water Management District and Lake Worth Drainage District canal network. The principal benefit of the construction of S-9 would be to create a uniform connection of water discharge from the agricultural operation into L23W. Secondarily, it would relieve periodic flooding of a residential area west of the unnamed drainage ditch and northwest of the proposed S-9 Canal. It is not designed to receive direct water input from that residential area. Only the agricultural operation has been granted permits to discharge into the unnamed canal through two pumping stations to the east of that canal and as a result of the present permit request through S-9 and thus to L23W. Those persons living in the residential area west of the unnamed canal have not sought necessary permitting for discharge into the proposed S-9 System. Moreover, even if permits were granted to the residents, the S-9 system would only allow the addition of 25 CPS over and above the 145 which the agricultural operation has preempted. The 25 CPS would not satisfactorily address high water problems found in the residential area. A more particular description of the limited value of the project's benefit to the homeowners is that it protects against occasional flooding which occurs when the farm operation discharges into the unnamed canal, causing water incursion in the southeast corner of the residential area to the west of the unnamed canal. If the S-9 Canal is constructed, it will be built within an 80 foot right-of-way held by petitioner. The canal as depicted in petitioner's Exhibit 35 admitted into evidence is 40-45 feet wide, approximately 5-8 feet deep and is configured in a u-shape transversing an area of 7,730 feet. The applicants in this present proposal have added a vegetated iittoral zone on one side of the canal and it covers approximately 20 percent or 1.9 acres of the canal surface. This zone affords a limited amount of treatment of the water in the system. In this regard, approximately 30 percent of the nutrients found within the water flowing in the system would be expected to be taken up or absorbed in the vegetational zone, except in the months of August and September, when optimum retention time within the system will not be afforded to allow the littoral zone to uptake 30 percent of contaminants in the water. A 21 foot maintenance berm would be constructed on the east side of the canal and bleeder pipes would be installed to control water elevations in the adjacent wetlands. The 170 CFS volume mentioned before is the design capacity of the proposed system. At that volume, the flow velocity is less than 2.6 feet per second, a velocity at which the canal's structural integrity would be expected to continue, i.e., erosion will not occur. The 145 CFS expected from the agricultural operation pursuant to permits for discharge issued by the South Florida Water Management District would promote a flow velocity of approximately 2 feet per second. This farm activity is known as the DuBois farm. (Its permit from the South Florida Water Management District allowing the 145 CFS to be discharged into the unnamed drainage ditch or canal is not contingent upon the construction of S-9.) The configuration of the S-9 Canal has been brought about principally to advantage the Petitioner in obtaining a construction permit from the United States Corps of Engineers. The Corps had an interest in protecting that corridor of land over which it has jurisdiction which is adjacent to the S-9 Canal and is described as a wetland area. A consequence of this choice of design for S-9 is the typical 72 to 80 hour travel time of water introduced into the system providing some settling of pollutants and some assimilation of pollutants within the littoral zone of the canal discussed before. 10..Necessary permits have been obtained from South Florida Water Management District and the United States Corps of Engineers to allow the construction of the proposed project. The configuration of this project takes into account the special concerns of those two agencies. In this sequence of collateral permitting, South Florida Water Management District has been responsible for an examination of stormwater quality considerations in deciding to grant a permit to Petitioner. With the construction of S-9 and connection of the unnamed canal to S- 9 and thus to L23W, all the waters within that conveyance system become Class III waters of the state in keeping with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and its associated rules of the Florida Administrative Code. In effect, this is a dredge and fill activity under the Respondent's jurisdiction found in Rule 17- 4.20, Florida Statutes. As such, it becomes a stationary installation which can reasonably be expected to be a source of water pollution of waters of the state by discharge of pollutants into waters of the state as envisioned by Section 403.087, Florida Statutes. During the construction phase of the canal, water quality degradation can be controlled related to turbidity, transparency and other criteria. Upon connection of the S-9 Canal to L23W and the utilization of that system, problems will be experienced with dissolved oxygen levels and to a lesser extent, nutrients and total coliform. Oils and greases problems are possible though not probable. No other water quality impacts are expected after connection. In expectation of the difficulty in achieving compliance with Respondent's water quality standards related to dissolved oxygen, the Petitioner has sought a variance under Section 403.021, Florida Statutes. This request is necessary because the dissolved oxygen levels in the proposed S-9 Canal, the unnamed canal or drainage ditch and L23W are not expected to uniformly exceed 5 mg/1. See Rule 17-3.121(13), Florida Administrative Code. The problem with dissolved oxygen in the unnamed canal and L23W and expected in the S-9 canal is not an enigma. This condition is prevalent in the South Florida area to include Palm Beach County, the site of the project. The water in the canals and drainage ditches in the region is frequently in violation of the standards related to dissolved oxygen, given the elevations of the land, climatic conditions, type of plant life, water temperature and constituents of the water. The addition of S-9 to the system would neither improve nor significantly degrade the quality of water related to the dissolved oxygen values for Class III waters, of which this proposed system is constituted. This finding acknowledges the fact that dissolved oxygen values in the unnamed canal are superior to L23W. Nonetheless, upon completion of S-9 and connection to the two other canals, no significant positive improvements of dissolved oxygen will be realized. Moreover, considering the fact that the installation of the S-9 Canal will stop the flooding on the southeast corner of the residential area west of the unnamed drainage ditch or canal, an increased volume of water flowing into L23W at any given moment can be expected, compared to the present outfall primarily along the Florida Power and Light system road into L23W. This has significance related to the dissolved oxygen standard to the extent of an increased volume of water in which substandard dissolved oxygen levels are found being introduced into L23W. It is more significant related to nutrients and bacteriological quality of the water, in particular fecal coliform. While there is no reason to believe that the quality of cleansing of water involved in sheet flow into L23W related to nutrients and coliforms is remarkably better at present, given the sparse vegetation along the power-line road which leads to L23W, than would be the case with S-9 with littoral zone, the increased volume of cater being introduced at the connection of S-9 and L23W during times of peak discharge, can be expected to present greater quantities of nutrients and coliform. In essence, the treatment afforded by the littoral zone and the transport in the S-9 Canal, contrasted with the treatment afforded during the transport of waters by sheet flow along the relatively barren stretch of land adjacent to the power-line road is found to be comparable, and the differences relate only to volume of discharge. This difficulty with nutrients and coliform count has been confirmed by tests made in the unnamed canal showing excessive levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and coliform and the water treatment features of the S-9 Canal will not entirely remove these materials. Although the farming practices of the DuBois operation tend to alleviate some nutrient loading in the unnamed canal, the test results established that those practices do not entirely eliminate the introduction of those nutrient materials into the canal. Consequently, some problems related to the effects of nutrient loading on populations of flora and fauna in the proposed system can be expected. In the context of the variance request, alternatives to the construction of the S-9 Canal are here considered. The alternative to leave the circumstance as it now exists carries with it the risk of periodic flooding of the southeast corner of the residential property west of the unnamed canal. That area and the balance of the residential acreage are subject to flooding without regard for the agricultural operation to the east. To deal with the difficulty related to the elevated water table, rainfall events and the flooding due to farm operation, some persons who reside in that residential tract have employed their own pump systems and ditches and retention areas to combat problems related to the geography of their property. In addition, the property is protected to some extent from outside influences by the existence of a dike and associated ditch, which limit some off-property incursion of water and assists to an extent in the transport of water away from their property. Moreover, the DuBois farm operation recently has placed a barrier at the end of the unnamed canal which directs water south along the Florida Power and Light road into L23W. In addition, the farm management has held down the pump speed during a rain event to protect the residential area. Nonetheless, at times the dike in the southeast corner adjacent to the residential property has breached in heavy rain events. As an alternative, the installation of S-9 would be only partially effective in alleviating the adverse conditions in the residential area west of the unnamed canal. It principally helps the DuBois farm operation. The relief afforded the residents would be the cessation of flooding caused by the operation of the farm pumps to the east as they breach the area in the southeast corner of the residential property, the future possibility of introducing as much as 25 CFS into the S-9 System subject to appropriate permits and the more tenuous possibility that the farm operation and the residential area could share the remaining 145 CPS capacity in the proposed system. The latter point isn't tenable from an examination of testimony at hearing. First, because the farmer wishes to conserve fertilizer and to maintain the moisture gradient and he does this by pumping off stormwater in a rainfall event, which events are most prevalent during his agricultural season. Secondly, the residential area is most in need of relief when the farmer is. Finally, the question of necessary permits to share capacity is unclear. Other alternatives related to a more comprehensive protection of the residential area by diking, a direct connection canal system to L23W from the unnamed canal, or dispersed sheet flow through the wetland area adjacent to the proposed S-9 Canal are not viable either for reason of design infirmity or impediments from other permitting agencies or inadequate property rights. Therefore, the viable choices are to either leave the property as it now stands or grant a permit to allow the construction of S-9. Between the remaining choices, no particular advantage is gained by the construction of this project. Dissolved oxygen problems in L23W, the receiving body of water, will not improve with the S-9 construction in a significant way and given the increased volume of discharge into L23W promoted by this construction are made worse. Nothing in the construction is so compelling to cause the exercise of the Respondent's discretion in favor of the grant of a variance related to dissolved oxygen values. 16..In examining the variance request by affording deference to Petitioner's regulatory responsibility, the need of the Lake Worth Drainage District to provide relief to those residents who are paying for drainage services is conceded. To that end, the proposed project does provide a certain amount of relief but it does not have as its primary emphasis purported assistance to those residents. As often stated, its principal benefit is to the DuBois farm operation. Left unresolved is the major source of suffering which is the lay of the land, a source which has prevailed from the beginning of the utilization of that property on the part of the residents. Plainly stated, much of the residential area was from the beginning and continues to be under water. The removal of the farm flooding and the future possibility of introducing a small increment of discharge into the S-9 system from the residential area subject to necessary permitting does not modify the characterization of this project as being one primarily for the farmer and to a much lesser extent for the residents. On this occasion, Petitioner's choice to fulfill its change is not persuasive enough to create special permission to violate the dissolved oxygen standard. In summary, a variance from the dissolved oxygen standard for Class III waters is not indicated. On the question of the permit application, in addition to failing to give reasonable assurances related to dissolved oxygen, the applicant has failed to satisfactorily address the problems with nutrients and coliforms. Other water quality standards have been satisfactorily addressed. Again, most of the water that will be introduced into the proposed system shall be stormwater; however, there will be other water components in the system constituted of surface water an groundwater, which also carry nutrients arid bacteriological deposits. Surface and groundwater are involved, given the level of elevations in the area, the depths of the unnamed canal, S-9 Canal and L23W and the fact that the DuBois farm operation can extract waters from the E-l Canal to the east of the farm properties as well as discharge water into that canal. It will not always be possible to distinguish whether the water in the proposed system is stormwater, groundwater or surface water. Consequently, South Florida Water Management's permitting related to stormwater is not definitive.
The Issue The issue is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District's (District's) proposed construction of a temporary floating weed barrier across the mouth of the canal exiting to the southwest side of Lake Hancock in Polk County, Florida, is exempt from regulatory review under Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background This proceeding involves a request by the District for authorization to construct a temporary floating weed barrier across the mouth of the canal exiting the southwest side of the Lake in Polk County, Florida (County). After reviewing the request, and based on its determination that the project would "have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the State," on September 27, 2002, the Department concluded that the project qualified for an exemption from regulatory review under Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes. The Department also authorized the District to use state-owned submerged lands, if applicable, for the construction of the project, and it found that the project was in compliance with the SPGP program and thus required no further permitting from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers). Even if the Department had not considered the project to be exempt, it concluded that it had sufficient information and assurances from the District to grant a Noticed General Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) authorizing the requested activity. On December 2, 2002, Petitioner, Bruce Lahey, who has resided and owned property on the southwest side of the Lake for 15 years and regularly uses the Lake for fishing and recreational purposes, filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing (Petition) challenging the proposed agency action. In his Petition, as later clarified and narrowed in the parties' Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Mr. Lahey contends that a weed barrier is no longer necessary since there has not been a weed problem in the Lake since late 2002; that the placement of a weed barrier will make access to and from the Lake more difficult and create a safety hazard; and that in the event a problem arises again, the more desirable options for removing the weeds are "a 'cookie-cutter,' mechanical harvester, or the spraying of [the] tussocks," rather than erecting a barrier. Finally, Mr. Lahey contends that as a matter of law, Section 369.20, Florida Statutes, bars the construction of a barrier. He has not challenged the Department's authorization for the District to use state-owned submerged lands or its determination that the project complies with the SPGP program, and therefore those aspects of the proposed agency action are not in issue. Respondents do not dispute that Mr. Lahey has standing to bring this action. The Lake and Control Structure The Lake is an approximately 4,500-acre Class III waterbody located east of Highway 98 and Highland City, southeast of Lakeland, and just northeast of the City of Bartow (Bartow). It receives drainage from a significant portion of the County, including three streams and runoff from a surrounding 131-square mile watershed. Waters discharge from the Lake to Saddle Creek (the canal), which exits at the southwest end of the Lake and runs in a southerly direction for around a mile and a half until it merges with the Peace Creek, where the two then become the Peace River. At the confluence of the canal and Peace Creek, the waters flow through a broad, flat floodplain. Water moves slowly through this area, which can affect the ability of the Lake to discharge, especially during flood conditions. Like the Lake and canal, the Peace Creek also has a significant contributing basin. The canal contains a District-owned and operated water control structure known as Water Control Structure P-11 (the control structure) consisting of two twenty-foot radial arm gates that are raised when necessary to manage the water levels on the Lake and prevent the flooding of lakefront property. The control structure is approximately 3,000 feet or so south of the Lake and is the only control structure regulating water levels for the Lake. The gates are designed to discharge at a flow level of 1,100 cubic feet per second (cfs). The invert elevation of the control structure is 91.7 feet and the crest elevation is 98.7 feet. Flows from the Lake will exceed 1,100 cfs when the water levels are higher than the crest elevation of the structure. At this point, water flows over the structure’s weirs and flood control is no longer provided. The maximum desirable water elevation level for the Lake is 98.5 feet above mean sea level (msl). Typically, the District begins to operate, or open, the control structure when the Lake's water elevation reaches 98.25 feet msl. A water level of 99.0 feet msl is considered minimum flood level (or high guidance level). The low management water elevation (low guidance level) is 96.0 feet msl. These established water levels have been maintained at the Lake since approximately 1981. The District seeks to hold the water level of the Lake close to the maximum desirable level, and typically tries to hold the water level at 98.25 feet msl, which is slightly below the maximum desirable level of 98.5 feet msl, to allow storage of water and some response time. The control structure is intended primarily to be a water conservation structure that regulates the Lake's water levels to benefit the water resources, to include the Lake and the Peace River. In managing the Lake's levels, the District balances conservation of the water resource and public safety/flooding concerns. The Lake's water level elevations are monitored through the District’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA), which measures the water level and transmits hourly data to the District offices via satellite. SCADA monitors are located immediately upstream and downstream of the control structure. Since the tussock blockage events in the summer and fall of 2002, described more fully below, the District has installed an additional SCADA monitor on the north end of the Lake so that water levels in the Lake and canal can be compared. The Lake does not have direct public access or a public boat ramp and is not easily accessible. In addition, in the canal, there is only one unimproved location upstream from the control structure where boats can be placed in the water and gain access to the Lake. That portion of the canal which lies between the Lake and the control structure has not always been open to boat access. In the 1980’s, a floating weed barrier extended across the canal approximately 1,000 feet upstream from the current control structure, which blocked the canal and boat access. This floating weed barrier was installed primarily to address problems with water hyacinths that would float down the canal and interfere with the control structure. This floating barrier gave way sometime in the 1990’s. An earlier control structure also used to exist in this area, which blocked canal access. Navigation of the canal is limited due to the existence of the control structure and a number of other blockages further downstream, including a low bridge where old Highway 17 crosses the canal. Thus, boats coming from the Lake cannot navigate down the canal any further than the control structure, or slightly more than one-half mile, without taking the boat out of the water. Between 1999 and 2001, the District experienced one of the most severe droughts on record. During this time, the Lake went dry except for some isolated pools of water. Because of these conditions, a significant amount of wetland or aquatic vegetation began to grow on the exposed bottom of the Lake. The Lake historically did not support much plant growth, due to its eutrophic condition, poor water quality, and gelatinous mucky lake bottom. The types of vegetation currently existing in the Lake include cattails, pickerelweed, duck potato, and primrose willow. Following the return of summer rains and El Nino conditions in 2002, the Lake rebounded to within normal water levels. Because of the return of water in the Lake, the buoyant pressure of the water combined with the flaccid nature of the mucky lake bottom caused significant portions of vegetation to become uprooted, which formed an extensive amount of tussocks. Tussocks are floating mats of uprooted aquatic vegetation. They contain plant and organic material accumulated around the plant roots, can range from a few feet across to one hundred feet across or larger, and can reach a height of more than four feet. Once tussocks form, they move about the Lake by wind and water currents. The amount of vegetation currently existing in the Lake exceeds historic levels. At the present time, the District estimates that approximately 2,000 acres of the Lake are covered with tussocks, and that due to the flaccid nature of the lake bottom, the tussocks are susceptible to becoming uprooted through fluctuating water levels, wind, and wave action. Therefore, there is a strong potential that much of the currently rooted vegetation will form tussocks. Tussocks first impacted the District’s ability to operate the control structure in July 2002. During this event, the canal became partially filled with tussocks. Because the blockage occurred during the rainy and hurricane seasons, the District undertook efforts to clear the canal of tussocks. District staff used mechanical equipment commonly called a cookie cutter to break up the tussocks and flush them downstream through the control structure. During this tussock event, the Lake's water levels rose briefly above the maximum desirable level of 98.5 feet msl and then fell back to within normal elevations. In late August 2002, approximately three weeks after the first tussock blockage event, a number of homeowners on the Lake, including Petitioner's wife, contacted District staff to advise that the water level of the Lake was rising and flooding their yards. A rise in water levels did not register on the District’s water level monitoring SCADA system. Visual observation of the Lake did reveal, however, that there was a significant difference between the water levels being experienced on the Lake and the water levels reported at the control structure via the SCADA system. During this tussock event, masses of tussocks had completely filled the 3,000-foot length of the canal all the way to the control structure and were jamming against the control structure gates. Tussocks had also formed a vegetation dam approximately 900 to 1,400 feet north of the control structure where they compacted and became lodged on the bottom of the canal, significantly impeding the flow of water. During this event, flows out of the Lake were significantly diminished to a fraction of what they should have been. The tussock dam caused the Lake's level to rise above the minimum flood elevation of 99.0 feet and flood Petitioner's yard. There was an approximately one to one and one-half foot difference in the water levels in the Lake and in the canal. In response to this disparity, the District installed a third water level elevation monitor at the northern end of the Lake, so that it can monitor any differences in water elevations between the Lake and the canal and be alerted in the event that a blockage occurs in the canal. To eliminate the tussock blockage and restore flow through the control structure, the District had to employ mechanical means to break up and remove the tussocks. At the control structure, a trac-hoe was initially used in an attempt to force tussocks through the control structure, as tussocks would not flow through the structure unassisted. A cookie cutter was also employed, but it became sucked into the control structure and was damaged and had to be removed with a crane and repaired. The cookie cutter proved ineffectual in addressing the tussock blockage problem. If the canal were to again become clogged with tussocks, any resulting blockage of flow from the Lake would cause water levels to rise, which would endanger public safety and welfare. Prior to the tussock blockages experienced in the summer and fall of 2002, problems with tussocks had never been experienced at the Lake. The magnitude of the tussock formation on the Lake is unique and has not been experienced elsewhere in the District. In 2002, the Department expended over $46,000.00 in contracting for mechanical equipment and for spraying herbicide on tussocks to respond to the tussock buildup on the Lake. Since their formation after the summer of 2002, tussocks have blocked Petitioner's access to his dock on several occasions, thereby preventing him from being able to take his boat out into the Lake or to return to the dock once out on the Lake. The potential for similar blockages to occur remains, regardless of whether a floating weed barrier is erected as proposed. The direction of the winds is a major factor in determining where and how many tussocks will stack up in front of anyone’s property along the Lake. Access to the canal could become blocked with tussocks at any time, depending upon how the wind blows. Breaking up tussock blockages and flushing tussocks through the control structure does not eliminate water resource problems for the District. Tussocks that are pushed through the control structure cause downstream problems requiring the District to expend resources to push the tussocks through and under low downstream bridges crossing the canal, as well as break up tussock blockages that form in downstream waters. In January 2003, tussocks again accumulated at the control structure in such volume as to require assistance in flushing through the control structure. As a result of the large volume of tussocks pushed through the control structure, a tussock blockage occurred at a downstream bridge crossing, for which the District had to use mechanical equipment to restore flow. During March 2003, tussocks flushed through the control structure created a jam downstream on the Peace River. The tussocks were jammed up in a bend in the river and were blocking navigational access to the river. An El Nino weather cycle is currently being experienced. Water levels, including the Lake's water level, are already at their maximum and the ground is saturated. Localized flooding events have occurred. A very active summer rainy season is anticipated, which will mean significant flood control operations for the District. As the summer season approaches, the District must keep the control structure open and operational, which requires that the canal be kept open and flowing. A floating weed barrier at the entrance to the canal would keep tussocks from clogging the canal and prevent problems affecting operation of the control structure, downstream tussock blockages, and possible flooding. The Project To address the problem of tussocks entering the canal and causing blockages or possible flooding, on September 11, 2002, the District applied to the Department for a Noticed General ERP under Rule 62-341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, to authorize the construction of a floating weed barrier at the entrance to the canal. On September 27, 2002, the Department issued its notice of intent to authorize the requested activity. The proposed barrier will be constructed in two sections arranged at approximately 90-degree angles to each other, with a twenty-foot opening between the sections to allow boat access to the canal. A schematic drawing of the barriers is found in District Exhibit 5 received in evidence. As originally proposed, the barrier would consist of a total of sixteen nine-inch diameter pilings driven twenty-one feet apart, with twenty-foot sections of floating foam-filled polyvinyl chloride pipe (pvc) connected to the pilings. Pilings will be marked with reflective tape and five of the pilings will have three-foot diamond-shaped reflective danger signs reading "DANGER PILE/FLOAT BARRIER" placed on their upstream and downstream sides. The pilings are twenty-five feet in length and will extend above the Lake's water level approximately twelve to fourteen feet. Since the District's submittal of the application and the Department's authorization notice, the District has located commercially manufactured floating booms, called "Tuffbooms," that, if authorized, will be installed in lieu of the foam-filled pvc pipes. Use of these booms reduces the number of pilings needed from sixteen to eight, and their bright orange color is more visible than pvc piping. All other aspects of the proposed activity remain the same. The change in material to be used in the construction of the proposed floating barrier does not present any water quality issues, nor does it affect the Department's determination that the proposed activity will have minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on the water resources. The staggered layout of the proposed floating weed barrier is intended to keep tussocks in the Lake, where they can remain subject to the winds, while providing boat access to the canal in such a manner that is more difficult for tussocks to enter the canal. The Department's Exemption Process The Department's Tampa District Office routinely approves around 800 projects each year under various exemptions authorized by statute or rule. One type of exemption is found in Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes, referred to as the de minimus exemption, which allows the Department to exempt from regulation those activities that are determined will have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the District. The Department is authorized to make this determination on a case-by-case basis. In determining whether an activity qualifies for a de minimus exemption from permitting, the Department looks for parallels to other specific statutory or rule exemptions and analyzes the proposed activity similarly in terms of its scope, construction methods, potential to create water quality impacts or impediments to navigation, and other factors, because these recognized exemptions are also deemed to have minimal or insignificant impacts to the water resources. There is no specific exemption for a floating weed barrier as proposed by the District, but the Department considers this type of project to be similar in scope and potential impacts to other specific activities that have been determined to have minimal or insignificant adverse impacts to the water resources, such as docks and other piling-supported structures, navigational aids, and buoy systems. In assessing whether a project is appropriate for the de minimus exemption, the Department also looks to the criteria for Noticed General ERPs for guidance in determining whether a proposed project will have minimal or insignificant adverse individual or cumulative impacts upon the water resources. Under Section 373.406(5), Florida Statutes, the Department may by rule establish general permits for activities that have, either singularly or cumulatively, minimal environmental impact. Chapter 62-341, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the Noticed General ERPs established by the Department. Department Rule 62-341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code (as does District Rule 40D-400.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code), allows noticed general permits for piling supported structures of less than 1,000 square feet over wetlands or other surface waters, which are not designated Outstanding Florida Waters. To qualify for a noticed general permit for such activity, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed structure: Does not significantly impede navigation and does not entail the construction of a structure for the launching or mooring of a boat when navigational access to the structure does not currently exist; Does not cause a violation of state water quality standards; Does not impede the conveyance of a stream, river or other watercourse in a manner that would increase off-site flooding; Does not adversely impact aquatic or wetland dependent listed species; Does not cause the drainage of wetlands; and Is not located in, on or over a coral community, macro-marine algae or submerged grassbed community. Will the Project Impact Water Resources? The District’s proposed floating weed barrier will involve less than 7.1 square feet of impact to the water resources, which is significantly less impact in square footage to the water resources than is allowed by Rule 62- 341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, or occurs with other specified exempt projects. Best management practices will be used in the erection of the pilings and in the construction of the barriers. Pilings will be jetted into the lake bottom without need for any dredging or lake bottom removal. Installation of a floating weed barrier will not result in any significant detriment to existing conditions in the Lake or the canal. Installation of the proposed floating weed barrier will benefit the public interest and the water resources by allowing unimpeded operation of the control structure without risk of tussocks causing blockages and flooding. Installation of the proposed floating weed barrier will not have significant adverse impacts on fishing, boating, or recreational use of the Lake or canal. A blockage of the canal entrance by tussocks, or a tussock jam anywhere on the Lake, could occur under present conditions, and similar blockages have already occurred. The potential for tussocks to block the opening between the sections of the floating weed barrier is considered remote and of temporary duration, due to the potential for shifting winds. The District’s proposed floating weed barrier is a reasonable means of addressing the continuing potential for tussocks to interfere with operation of the control structure. Use of mechanical equipment such as a cookie cutter or harvester would not be an effective or economical means of addressing tussock blockages in the canal or preventing their occurrence and possible interference with operation of the control structure. Pushing tussocks through the control structure would not be an effective means of addressing the potential for tussocks to cause blockages and possible flooding. Merely pushing the material through the control structure moves the potential blockage problem downstream and does not alleviate the potential for tussocks to cause adverse impacts to the water resources of the District. Spraying tussocks with herbicides would not be an effective means of addressing tussock blockages due to the fact that, once treated, tussocks can take weeks to die and fall to the lake bottom. Floating tussocks are and will continue to be treated with herbicide sprays when found in the Lake to reduce the amount of tussocks. However, once tussocks enter the canal, spraying serves little benefit in preventing tussocks from causing blockages or other problems. Tussocks originate in the Lake and not in the canal. Tussocks in the Lake have had and likely will continue to have an impact on boating and recreational use of the Lake and canal, as evidenced by tussock blockages to Petitioner's dock. By confining the tussocks to the Lake, the potential for tussocks to impact boating and recreational use of the Lake will remain the same as current conditions, but the potential for tussocks to affect operation of the control structure and contribute to Lake flooding will be eliminated. Petitioner contends that the proposed floating weed barrier will impede navigation, either by itself or as a result of tussocks piling up in front of the barrier. The proposed barrier will be marked and visible through reflective tape and signage. The barrier does not create a navigational hazard and is not a significant impediment to access to the canal. Constructed in two sections, the barrier provides an opening that allows boat access to the canal. As noted above, the likelihood of tussocks piling up at the barrier and blocking the opening between the barrier sections is considered remote and temporary. Based upon the information provided by the District, the proposed floating weed barrier will not significantly impede navigation; will not cause a violation of state water quality standards; will not impede the conveyance of a stream, river, or other water course in a manner that would increase off-site flooding; will not adversely impact aquatic or wetland dependent listed species; and will not cause the drainage of wetlands. There is no evidence that the proposed activity is located in, on, or over a coral community, macro-marine algae, or submerged grassbed community or that it entails the construction of a structure for the launching or mooring of a boat for which navigational access does not currently exist. The proposed activity would have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the District. As an activity that has minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on the water resources of the District, either individually or cumulatively, the District’s project qualifies for an exemption pursuant to Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes, as well as a Noticed General ERP under Rule 62- 341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Department's exemption determination authorized the District’s floating weed barrier for one year, presumably so that the effectiveness of the barriers can be evaluated during that period of time. If they are effective, an extension or renewal of the authorization will be sought. If the tussocks problem becomes less acute, or the barriers do not achieve the desired purpose, they will be taken down. In contrast, Noticed General ERPs authorize a particular activity for five years. Other Contentions by Petitioner Petitioner has also contended that the proposed activity may violate a condition of the District's Corps of Engineers general permit by interfering with general navigation. As found earlier, however, the more credible evidence indicates otherwise. Moreover, it is presumed that this issue was considered by the Corps of Engineers prior to its approval of the project. In any event, that matter should be raised with the Corps of Engineers, and not with the Department. Finally, Mr. Lahey contends that since at least late 2002, the Lake has been free of a tussocks problem and therefore barriers are no longer needed. As noted above, however, blockages have occurred at the control structure and in the Peace River as recently as January and March 2003, and such blockages were the direct result of tussocks which originated in the Lake. Given the likelihood of a very active summer rainy season, it is essential that the canal be kept open so that the District can properly manage and control the water resources.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a final order determining that the Southwest Florida Water Management District's proposed project qualifies for an exemption under Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes; that authorization to use state-owned lands be given; and that the project is in compliance with the State Programmatic General Permit program. DONE AND ENTERED this _____ day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this _____ day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Bruce Lahey 5280 Waterwood Drive Bartow, Florida 33830-9766 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Doreen Jane Irwin, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent Centex Homes is entitled to the issuance of an environmental resource permit to construct a 2665 square-foot boat dock and authorization of a lease of 7807 square feet of sovereign submerged land in the portion of the Intracoastal Waterway known as Lake Worth Lagoon in Palm Beach County.
Findings Of Fact In this case, Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) has proposed to issue to Respondent Centex Homes (Centex) an environmental resource permit (ERP) and authorization to lease sovereign submerged land. The purpose of the ERP and lease authorization is for Centex to construct a dock to serve a multifamily development known as Ocean Cay. Ocean Cay is a 56-unit townhouse development located on a five-acre parcel in Hypoluxo, Florida, bordered on the west by U.S. Highway 1, on the east by the Lake Worth Lagoon, and on the north and south by developed residential areas. At the time of the hearing, Centex had closed on the sale of 50 of the residential units, was finishing construction of the final six units, and had entered into contracts to sell three of these six units. The Lake Worth Lagoon is a Class III water and is not an aquatic preserve. The Intracoastal Waterway channel is in the middle of the lagoon. The proposed dock would be about 1.5 miles north of the South Lake Worth Inlet (a/k/a Boynton Inlet) and 13 miles south of the Lake Worth Inlet (a/k/a Palm Beach Inlet). As measured from the project location to the opposite shoreline, the length of the dock is more than 25 percent of the width of the waterbody. Petitioner Michael C. Brown resides at 131 Las Brisas Circle, Hypoluxo, Florida. Intervenor O'Brien resides at 124 Park Lane East, Hypoluxo, Florida. Intervenors Evlyn and Vern Hakes reside at 140 Park Lane East, Hypoluxo, Florida. As stipulated by Respondents, Petitioner and Intervenors have standing, so this Recommended Order will not restate the substantial evidence in the record of the standing of Petitioner and Intervenors. Three of the objections raised by Petitioner and Intervenors involve procedural issues that are easily dismissed on factual grounds. The first objection is that Centex lacks the requisite equitable interest in the upland to obtain a lease of sovereign submerged land. The second objection is that the Ocean Cay Homeowners' Association lacks the financial, legal, and administrative resources to ensure the performance of all permitting obligations, as they may arise in the future. The third objection is that District staff, not the Governing Board of District, issued the proposed agency action on the ERP. As for the first procedural objection, Centex acquired the parcel by special warranty deed, which vests fee simple interest in Centex and contains all the customary warranties of title. The title insurance policy obtained by Centex for the parcel insures fee simple interest in Centex, subject to undescribed reservations contained in the deed from the Board Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees), any part of the parcel lying below the mean high water line, and public rights "to use the waters over the submerged land lying adjacent to or within the Intercoastal [sic] Waterway for boating, fishing, swimming and other public purposes, together with the rights of the State of Florida and United States to regulate the use of the navigable waters." Not only does Centex enjoy full beneficial ownership of the upland, subject to the rights of its grantees who have purchased townhouse units, but Centex's title extends approximately 250 feet waterward of the mean high water line by operation of a deed from the Trustees to a predecessor in interest of Centex. If the ownership of submerged land between the submerged land for which an applicant seeks a lease and adjacent uplands also owned by an applicant has any effect at all, it only emphasizes the legitimate, nonspeculative interest of such an applicant in obtaining the sought-after lease. As for the second procedural objection, Centex is a sophisticated land-development entity with ample financial, legal, and administrative resources to ensure the satisfaction of any permitting obligations imposed upon it in connection with this case. At present, Centex controls the Ocean Cay Homeowners' Association. So, at present, the concerns of Petitioner and Intervenors about the ability of the homeowners' association to satisfy its obligations are unfounded. It is true that, upon the closing of the sale of sufficient units, Centex will transfer control of the homeowners' association to the homeowners. The record does not describe the financial, legal, and administrative resources of the homeowners' association following the withdrawal of Centex, but they will presumably not approach the substantial resources of Centex. District claims that Centex may not transfer the ERP without District's approval; however, ERP Special Condition 2 identifies the operating entity responsible for the docking facility as Ocean Cay Homeowners' Association, even though the ERP identifies the applicant as Centex. Fatal to the argument of Petitioner and Intervenors, though, are the facts that the proposed lease of sovereign submerged land is for only five years, a failure to discharge permit obligations that should be incorporated verbatim into the lease militates against any lease renewals, and the removal of the dock would substantially cure any deficiencies in its maintenance. As for the third procedural objection, District staff, on November 21, 2003, proposed to issue a standard general ERP for the construction and operation of a 2665 square-foot docking facility with nine boat slips for use by the residents of Ocean Cay and to approve the lease of 7807 square feet of sovereign submerged land under and surrounding the docking facility. Staff issues a proposed standard general ERP when a permit does not conflict with existing law or policy or a work of the District. District's Governing Board issues a proposed standard individual ERP in the relatively rare case in which a permit conflicts with existing law or policy or a work of the District. Again, the objections of Petitioner and Intervenors lack factual support. Here, the Governing Board, not staff, will receive the Recommended Order and issue the Final Order. So, as Petitioner and Intervenors wish, the Governing Board, not staff, will take the final agency action in this case. Under these circumstances, the record reveals no harm in the fact that District staff issued the proposed agency action. The remainder of the ERP provisions bears on the substantive objections raised by Petitioner and Intervenors. As amended at the final hearing by District and accepted by Centex, ERP Special Condition 9 provides: A permanent sign shall be installed at the docking facility entrance to notify boat owners that mooring at the docking facility shall be limited to no more than a total of nine vessels. Vessels moored in slips 1-2 and 7-9 shall be limited to outboard powered vessels, not more than 27 feet in length as reported by the manufacturer exclusive of engines and any bow pulpit. Vessels moored in slips 3 and 6 shall be limited to not more than 27 feet in length as reported by the manufacturer exclusive of engines and any bow pulpit. Vessels moored in slips 3 and 6 are not limited to outboard power. Vessels moored in slips 4 and 5 shall be limited to 36 feet in length, as reported by the manufacturer exclusive of engines and any bow pulpit. Vessels in slips 4 and 5 are not limited to outboard power. Slips are identified by number in the discussion below. As amended at the final hearing by District and accepted by Centex, ERP Special Condition 10 provides: "Dock, walkway, and seagrass sign pilings shall be constructed of plastic, concrete or greenheart, non-CCA treated wood or wood wrapped in 30 to 60 mil pvc." ERP Special Condition 11 provides that construction of the dock shall be in accordance with the locations and dimensions shown on the enclosed exhibits. The referenced drawings depict the adjacent upland, submerged bottom, and proposed dock. The drawings describe sufficient detail of the adjacent upland. The north and south property lines of the 190- foot wide parcel run due east and west. At mean high water, the parcel's shoreline runs about 210 feet in a south-southwesterly direction from the north property line. Waterward of the mean high water line is a thin band of sand, varying portions of which are exposed between mean high water and mean low water. The drawings describe the submerged bottom in great detail as to seagrass and reasonable detail as to water depths. Waterward of the beach is a band of Halodule wrightii (shoal grass). The drawings describe the shoal grass in this area as "sparse." The drawings depict mean low water depths along three transects at 25-foot intervals, starting roughly at the landward commencement of the shoal grass. (All water depths are based on mean low water.) If the property lines were extended into the water, the north transect is 25 feet south of the north property line, and the south transect is 25 feet north of the south property line. The middle transect is an equal distance between the north and south transects. Along the north transect, the band of shoal grass is about 25 feet wide. Along the south transect, the band narrows to about six feet wide. Along the middle transect, the band is about 50 feet wide. Waterward of the band of sparse shoal grass, according to the drawings, is a band of "mixed Halodule and sparse Johnson's." The reference to "Johnson's" is to Halophila johnsonii (Johnson's grass), which is a rare species of seagrass that is listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as threatened. 50 C.F.R. § 17.12(h). Johnson's grass is found only on the east coast of Florida from the Indian River Lagoon to Biscayne Bay and is a fragile species of seagrass. The band of mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass reflects the same pattern as the shoal grass closer to shore: thinner at the north and south ends and wider in the middle. Along the north transect, the band of the two species is about 162 feet wide. Along the south transect, the band is about 212 feet wide. Along the middle transect, the band is about 240 feet wide. Waterward of the middle band of mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass, according to the drawings, is "scattered isolated blades of H. Decipiens and [Johnson's grass]." "H. Decipiens" is Halophila decipiens (paddle grass). Waterward of the north and south ends of the mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass are triangular-shaped areas of "sparse Johnson's." Along the north transect, this band of sparse Johnson's grass is about 75 feet wide. Along the south transect, this band of sparse Johnson's grass is about 50 feet wide. Waterward of these bands of sparse Johnson's grass is "scattered, isolated blades of H. Decipiens and [Johnson's grass]." Measured from the mean high water line, the band of mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass extends about 275 feet along the north transect, 312 feet along the middle transect, and 300 feet along the south transect. Water depths are shallow throughout almost the entire project area. Starting from shore, water depths are almost entirely less than 1.0 feet within the area of sparse shoal grass, although depths reach 1.2 feet along the middle transect. Proceeding waterward along the north transect, the depths within the area of mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass range from 0.7 feet at the landward end to 2.2 feet at the waterward end. Proceeding waterward along the middle transect, the depths within the area of mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass range from 1.2 feet to 4.2 feet. Proceeding waterward along the south transect, the depths within the area of mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass range from 1.0 feet to 2.7 feet. The water continues to deepen in the triangular-shaped areas of sparse Johnson's grass, through which the north and south transects run. Along the north transect, the water depths range from 2.2 feet to 3.1 feet. Along the south transect, the water depths range from 2.7 feet to 3.6 feet. The drawings depict depths waterward of the start of scattered, isolated blades of paddle grass and Johnson's grass. These reported depths extend to a point roughly parallel to the end of the proposed dock along the north transect, about 12 feet waterward of the end of the proposed dock along the middle transect, and about 37 feet waterward of the end of the proposed dock along the south transect. Along the north transect, the depths remain constant, at about 3.5 feet, until the most waterward 25 feet, along which the water deepens 0.5 feet to 4.1 feet. Along the middle transect, the depths deepen about 0.5 feet to around 5.0 feet for about 75 feet, then deepen to 5.4 feet a few feet landward of the most waterward portion of the dock. About 10 feet waterward of the end of the dock, the depth reaches 5.7 feet, which is the deepest reported depth in the project area. Along the south transect, the depths deepen about one foot over the first 100 feet waterward from the start of the scattered, isolated blades of paddle grass and Johnson's grass. From a point parallel to the end of the dock, the water along the south transect deepens another 0.5 feet to about 5.2 feet. The drawings also describe the proposed dock in great detail. The dock, oriented due east and west, runs a distance of 420 feet from its landing, at the mean high water line, to its waterward terminus. The dock is four feet wide, except for a 10-foot long section, at about midpoint, that is six feet wide to facilitate wheelchair access. At the urging of District, to reduce seagrass impacts, Centex moved the dock ten feet south and extended it ten additional feet into deeper water. Because of the former of these modifications, the dock runs ten feet south of the middle transect. The main deck of the dock is grated, so as to allow at least 46 percent of the light to pass through it, from the waterward extent of the sparse shoal grass to the waterward extent of the mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass, which is a distance of about 250 feet. Although the drawings specify only a value of 46 percent light transmissibility, testimony established that this criterion would require the use of fiberglass decking material. Perhaps the most prominent feature of the dock, in addition to its length, is its height. The deck is five feet above mean high water. Mean high water is 1.7 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Mean low water is -0.8 feet NGVD. Five decks run perpendicular to the main deck--three on the south side and two on the north side--to form the slips at the waterward terminus of the dock. The most landward of these decks is four feet wide and 30-feet long and runs south of the main deck, at a point about 330 feet waterward of the landing. Two more decks, both of the same dimensions as the first deck, join the main deck at a point about 375 feet waterward of the landing. Thirty-eight feet separate the two southern decks, so that the two slips created between them (Slips 9 and 8, from landward to waterward) each is 18-19 feet wide. The most landward slip formed north of the main deck (Slip 1) is also 18-19 feet wide. Two pilings north of the main deck and two pilings south of the main deck define these first three slips. The remaining perpendicular decks form the terminus of the entire dock. These decks are eight-feet wide and run 38 feet north and 38 feet south of the edges of the main deck. The four slips immediately landward of these decks are 18-19 feet wide. Moving clockwise from the northwest corner, these slips are Slips 2, 3, 6, and 7. The remaining two slips are waterward of the eight-foot wide deck. The northern slip is Slip 4, and the southern slip is Slip 5. According to the drawings, the waterward extent of the proposed lease is 18 feet waterward of the waterward end of the dock. The waterward extent of the proposed lease is 425 feet from the landward end of the Intracoastal Waterway channel (the 415 feet shown in the drawings is wrong), which, as established by testimony, is 125 feet wide at this location. The drawings also depict a 42-inch high handrail running from the landing to the most landward perpendicular deck. The purpose of the handrail, whose vertical slats are eight inches apart, is to discourage mooring of vessels to the main dock landward of the slips. Every 50 feet, at the base of the handrails on either side of the dock, is a sign prohibiting docking, mooring, loading, or unloading of vessels. At the terminus of the dock, the drawings show a rock crib structure that rises about one foot from the submerged bottom along the entire 80-foot length of the eight-foot wide perpendicular deck. Apparently, the rock crib is eight-feet wide, so that it extends, beneath the surface of the water, under the entire area of the eight-foot wide perpendicular deck. Extending above the rock crib, along this 80-foot long deck, is a wave attenuator. The drawings also depict a couple of seagrass warning signs north and south of the dock, about 20-30 feet waterward of the waterward extent of the sparse Johnson's grass, at the north and south portions of the project area, and the mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass, in the middle of the project area, just a few feet north of the dock. The drawings also show pilings at a minimum of 10-foot intervals along the entire length of the main deck, as well as pilings for the perpendicular decks at the dock's terminus. Special Condition 12 prohibits fueling facilities or hull-painting or -cleaning at the dock. Special Condition 13 prohibits liveaboards. Special Condition prohibits subleasing of the docking facilities and limits their use to residents of Ocean Cay. Special Conditions 14 and 15 detail various manatee- protection provisions. Special Condition 19 requires the implementation of a turbidity-control plan during construction. Special Condition 18 prohibits construction under the ERP until the Department of Environmental Protection has issued a submerged land lease. As amended at the final hearing by District and accepted by Centex, Special Condition 20 requires Centex to maintain at least one trash receptacle at the terminus of the dock. The District staff report states that Centex has minimized the impacts of the project by reducing the length of the dock from 550 feet and its capacity from 22 slips. The staff report notes, as mentioned above, the relocation of the dock ten feet to the south and ten feet waterward, both changes to reduce impacts on seagrasses. The District staff report states that manatees probably use the area of the project for travel and foraging nearshore seagrass beds. Concerning the lease of sovereign submerged land, the District staff report acknowledges the waterward extent of Centex's ownership of submerged lands. As for the sovereign submerged land, the District staff report states, without explanation, that the docking facility is not more than 25 percent of the width of the "navigable portion of the waterbody," pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(4)(a)3, and is more than 100 feet from the federal navigation channel, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(4)(a)4. The District staff report attaches "Recommended Special Lease Conditions for Ocean Cay." These include a restriction that vessels moored at the dock clear the submerged bottom by at least one foot at all times while moored. Other provisions correspond to the special conditions attaching to the ERP, as described above. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, analysis of the proposed activity requires three determinations: first, does the proposed activity, unmitigated, adversely impact surface waters; second, if so, has Centex reduced or eliminated all such impacts through design modifications to the extent practicable; and third, if so, but if net impacts remain, has Centex adequately mitigated these net impacts? Absent mitigation, the construction of a 420-foot dock covering 2665 square-feet of water adversely impacts the water resources, most obviously by the immediate destruction of the seagrasses occupying the area in which at least 80 pilings will be installed and by the gradual destruction of the seagrasses that will be shaded by the dock and lose the light necessary for survival. Centex has incorporated into the proposed dock design all practicable modifications that could eliminate or reduce these adverse impacts to the surface waters. Centex has proposed a dock that is narrow, high, translucent, and nontoxic. To minimize the risk of prop dredging of the seagrass and bottom sediments, the dock's length and railings would limit mooring to relatively deeper water, and the boat-length restriction would effectively limit the reach of prop dredging. Even after these design modifications, however, adverse impacts to the surface waters remain that Centex must mitigate. The ultimate issue, then, is whether Centex has adequately mitigated the remaining impacts of the proposed activity by proposing sufficient affirmative acts to offset the remaining adverse impacts. Strictly speaking, mitigation consists of activities that are unnecessary for the desired activity--here, the construction of a dock--but are performed to offset the adverse impacts of the desired activity. In this case, Centex proposes three mitigation activities: the construction of a rock crib, the installation of a wave attenuator, and the erection of two seagrass warning signs. The adequacy of this proposed mitigation requires identification of the specific impacts to the surface waters and the efficacy of the mitigation in offsetting these impacts. As cited in the Conclusions of Law, the public-interest criteria set forth the elements requiring consideration. Except to the extent discussed in navigation, the dock will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or property of others. The narrow, long dock, which restricts mooring activity to its terminus over 400 feet from the shoreline, has no impact on the riparian rights of adjacent or nearby upland owners. Thus, no mitigation is necessary for this criterion. Even after mitigation, the dock will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including listed species, and their habitats. The most immediate impact of the dock is upon the seagrasses that presently grow on the bottom. Seagrasses, which are among the most productive communities known to nature, are vital to the health of the Lake Worth Lagoon. Seagrasses perform numerous functions important to the surface waters and, specifically, the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats: shelter for small fish and shellfish; food for a variety of small and larger organisms, including manatee and sea turtles; stabilization of bottom sediments, which improves water clarity; recycling of nutrients, including nitrogen--an important function for the water quality of the nitrogen-limited Lake Worth Lagoon; and formation of a substrate on which epiphytes may attach and provide food for a variety of organisms, including manatee and sea turtles. The mitigation activities offset some, but not all, of the functions provided by the seagrass that are lost by the construction of the dock. The rock crib probably will replace the function of the seagrass in stabilizing sediments. The rock crib probably will replicate some of the shelter function of the seagrass, although nothing in the record would support a finding that the crevices of the rock crib provide exactly the same shelter as the seagrass patches that will be destroyed by the dock. Thus, there is no basis to assume that the shelter functions of the seagrass are replaced by the shelter functions of the rock crib. Undoubtedly, the rock crib will not replace the food function of the seagrass. Some predators may find the same juvenile fish in the rock crib as they have found in the seagrass, and some organisms may find the same epiphytes attaching to the rock crib as they have found attaching to the seagrass. However, the organisms, such as manatee and sea turtles, that eat the seagrass itself will find the rock crib a poor food substitute. Additionally, the rock crib will perform none of the nutrient-fixing that seagrasses perform. The rock crib thus fails to perform the vital functions of seagrass in providing food for important species, such as the manatee, and fixing nutrients, which is important to improving or maintaining water quality. The wave attenuator is a potentially useful form of mitigation. Although a slight over-generalization, the seagrass thins to the point of near disappearance at a point in which the slope of the submerged bottom breaks--very roughly at about three feet deep. Centex's witnesses offered the better explanation of this phenomenon by linking it to the strong wakes produced by vessels motoring in the Intracoastal Waterway. Although the area of the proposed project is permanently slow speed, no wake, the Intracoastal Waterway channel has no speed limit, and the wakes from vessels in the channel pound the shallows, focusing considerable energy upon the rising bottom at the point at which the water depth reduces to three feet. The main problem with the wave attenuator as mitigation is one of scale. Nothing in the record suggests that the attenuator, even in conjunction with the rock crib beneath it, will attenuate the incoming waves along the entire length of the dock. The attenuator will absorb the energy of the waves, whether from passing vessels or storms, but the interrupted waves will rejoin a short distance landward of the attenuator, possibly waterward of the first appearance of significant seagrass. The wave attenuator is thus inadequate in preserving or enhancing the remaining seagrass following the construction of the dock. The signs suffer two shortcomings. First, they are as likely to attract fishers as they are to deter recreational boaters, so the record permits no finding as to their efficacy in preserving or enhancing the remaining seagrass following the construction of the dock. Second, the record discloses little prop dredging of the seagrasses in the proposed vicinity of the dock, so the effect of the signs is not to ameliorate the damage historically done in this area by boats. To the contrary, at best, the signs may reduce some of the prop dredging that would occur in the future by boats drawn close to shore by the presence of the dock, which will attract fish and, thus, fishers. For these reasons, the signs are inadequate mitigation. Considered in conjunction with each other, the three mitigation activities fail to address the important food and nutrient-fixing functions of the seagrass that would be destroyed by the dock. Ignoring the failure of the proposed mitigation to address two of the most important functions of the seagrass, District and Centex contend that the mitigation is adequate for other reasons. District and Centex contend that the loss of seagrass is de minimis, consisting of not more than .03 acres of destroyed seagrass, or about 2.2 percent of the seagrass in the project area. Although the east-west orientation of the dock results in more shading than an identical dock oriented north- south, the shading loss could be less due to commendable design modifications involving the width, height, and translucent materials of the dock. Adding to the loss of seagrass from shading is the loss from the "halo effect," which is the wider area of seagrass loss probably resulting from the effect of the dock in artificially attracting and retaining seagrass consumers, like parrot fish. The record thus affords no basis for a finding of a loss of less than .03 acres. Nor does the record afford any basis for determining that the seagrass loss is de minimis. If Lake Worth Lagoon has seagrass to spare, the record does not support such a finding. If the lost functions of the seagrass--primarily, providing food and fixing nutrients--are not de minimis, the question remains whether practicable mitigation for these functions exists. Although transplantation of seagrass may be impracticable due to poor water clarity, even one of Centex's experts noted the importance of filling holes for seagrass recruitment, given the inability of seagrass to extend roots laterally up or down slopes. District's expert identified backfilling submerged holes and scraping spoil islands as two means of encouraging natural seagrass recruitment. District's expert noted a practical consideration favoring rock cribs versus more elaborate, higher-maintenance mitigation. Rock cribs are low- or no-maintenance projects that require no monitoring, enforcement, or enhancement. However, these same considerations underscore the complexity of the functions provided by seagrass lost to the proposed activity. Mitigating the loss of these functions may be difficult and high-maintenance, if the mitigation is to offset the loss. On this record, a finding of impracticability of such mitigation activities would be speculative, given the absence of evidence of impracticability, such as in the form of the absence of nearby depressions with suitable recruitment conditions or seagrass restoration projects in which Centex could participate. An unusual factor militating against a finding of adequate mitigation is that one of the seagrasses is itself a protected species. Johnson's grass is rare and fragile. The dock would displace Johnson's grass in a location less than one mile north of one of ten federally designated Critical Habitats for Johnson's Seagrass and one of two such habitats in Lake Worth Lagoon. 50 C.F.R. § 226.213(h). In contrast to the permit conditions directly protecting the manatee, the record is silent as to any effort by District to coordinate this permit with the work of the federal government and possibly the state and local governments to preserve Lake Worth Lagoon's seagrass, including the threatened Johnson's grass. On balance, even after mitigation, the dock will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including listed species, and their habitats. The dock will not adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, and erosion or shoaling. Located only 1.5 miles from the inlet, tidal flows are good in the project area. The rock crib and wave attenuator, which tend to restrict east-west flows and waves, will have little impact on the tidal flows, which are predominantly in a north-south direction. The dock will not cause any erosion or shoaling. The dock will be lighted and should not present a navigation hazard. Larger vessels will remain a safe distance from the dock as they travel in the Intracoastal Waterway channel. Under normal boating conditions, small boats, such as kayaks, canoes, and small motorboats, can safety navigate under the five-foot deck and between the pilings spaced at a minimum distance of ten feet apart. The dock will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values in the vicinity. To the contrary, the structure provided by the dock will probably attract and concentrate fish, making them easier to catch. In the longer term, even after mitigation, the dock will adversely affect marine productivity for the reasons discussed in connection with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitat. The dock will not adversely affect any historical or archaeological resources. Even after mitigation, the dock will adversely affect the current conditions and relative value of functions for the reasons discussed in connection with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitat. For the reasons set forth above, Centex has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity, even after mitigation, is not harmful to the District's water resources, is not inconsistent with District's overall objectives, is not contrary to the public interest, will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by surface waters, and will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying Centex Homes' request for an environmental resource permit and approval to lease sovereign submerged lands for the purpose of constructing the above- described dock at Ocean Cay in the Lake Worth Lagoon. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida Marcy I. LaHart 33416-4680 Marcy I. LaHart, P.A. 711 Talladega Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 Ashley D. Foster South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Mail Stop Code 1410 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 J. Kendrick Tucker Huey, Guilday, Tucker, Schwartz & Williams, P.A. Post Office Box 12500 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2500
Findings Of Fact Respondent Communities Financial Corporation is a Florida corporation engaged in the subdivision and sale of real property. In 1971 CFC purchased approximately twenty-two sections, or 22 square miles, of real property ("the land") in Township 34 South, Range 33 East, Okeechobee County, Florida, which it proposed to sell as individual one-and-one-quarter (1-1/4) acre lots. The subsequent development of that land is the subject of this proceeding. Respondent Coquina Water Management District ("Coquina") was organized pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, by judgment of the Circuit Court for Okeechobee County, Florida to perform drainage activities on the land. The land which CFC purchased in 1971 was originally platted in 1912 in a grid system with roads, drainage canals, and ditches. Extensive drainage was required for use of the land because it was very flat and had a high water table. Approximately one-half of the land was subject to flooding. After it was originally platted it was utilized for cattle ranching with drainage ditches connecting the low areas to encourage runoff. Ten-acre tracts surrounded by dikes and two to three foot deep ditches were used for tomato farming. Such agricultural ditching covered approximately 15 square miles of the property. At one time a hotel was situated on a portion of the property. North-South and East-West roads and a 5,000-foot airstrip were constructed across the property. The East-West road along the South boundary of the property, which is now a state road, has an adjacent drainage ditch which received ranchland water runoff from property east of the land. In 1971 and 1972 CFC registered the platted lots for sale with the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums ("Land Sales") of the State of Florida Department of Business Regulation. In the normal course of compiling the documentation to be submitted for registration, CFC contacted several state regulatory agencies to determine whether such agencies required CFC to obtain permits for development of the property. CFC provided those agencies copies of its drainage plans, which included roads, swales, canals, and control structures. The State of Florida Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") stated that the construction of improvements as planned in the development would not be subject to that agency's jurisdiction for purposes of a dredge and/or fill permit. The State of Florida Department of Pollution Control ("DPC"), predecessor of DER, first stated in a letter of October 4, 1971, to Mr. Moseley Collins, who submitted a "plan of reclamation to DPC, that it had no regulatory responsibilities over the project: In response to your request for comments this Department has conducted a preliminary review of the proposed plan. We have no basic objections to the overall plan of development and believe it could be platted as shown. Specific details as to drainage techniques will be reviewed at a latter [sic] date. It is brought to you [sic] attention that although we have no regulatory responsibili- ties in this area we will welcome the opportunity to review cross sections and details at a latter [sic] date. We thank you for the opportunity to review a project of this magnitude at an early date. [Emphasis added.] The DPC, in a letter of March 30, 1972, to Collins, also observed that: This Department has conducted a review of the revised plan for the subject project and endorse the approach that you are contemplating in developing these areas. I have coordinated with other agencies and organizations and they concur with the approach. We would like to review the project at a future date to deter- mine the method of construction of the swales or greenways to move the water from one lake to another through the complete watershed area. You and your client are to be commended on this approach. From the preliminary layout you can see the possibilities for the potential develop- ment of an area for residential usage that will retain a large percentage of the natural resources and minimize the downstream effect on the overall watershed. Please advise when you want to review the project in greater detail. [Emphasis added.] In connection with the registration of the development, CFC submitted to Land Sales the above-referenced letters from DNR and DPC, detailed evidence of the proposed plan of development, and a public offering statement for use in solicitation of lot sales from the general public. Each offering statement contains several statements to the effect that "this is not a homesite subdivision." Land Sales approved use of the offering statement. In using it to solicit sales, CFC committed to the purchasers that it would complete the required road and drainage improvements by December 31, 1979. CFC commenced sales of lots in the development in 1971. The Agreements for Deed approved by Land Sales and subsequently entered into by CFC with lot purchasers required CFC to deliver improved lots by December 31, 1979. Most of the land sales were made between 1971 and 1973. (6,412 lots were sold and 1,146 were conveyed by June 23, 1977.) Approximately eighty percent of the lots have been sold to date. Up to one-half of the approximately nine thousand lot purchasers hold legal title to their lots pursuant to deeds issued to them by CFC upon full payment. CFC began construction of the promised improvements, consisting of roads and drainage, in 1972. At the present time approximately $1,000,000 of improvements have been completed and approximately $750,000 remain to be completed. In 1973 or 1974, CFC and Coquina submitted plans for the surface water management system which CFC proposed to construct for the property to the South Florida Water Management District ("SFWMD"). The initial plan of development called for the construction of a road and canal system. At the request of SFWMD, the plan was subsequently changed to a road and swale system, and the configuration of one of the control structures was changed. The design changes resulted in more water retention on the property and the preservation of sensitive areas. After several years of analysis and review of the design plan, inspection of the project site, and a public hearing, SFWMD granted conceptual approval for the surface water management system to be constructed by CFC in 1977. The conceptual approval was partially based on the SFWMD staff's assessment than pollutant loadings from the property after development would be less than existing loadings, and that adverse water quality impacts as a result of the proposed development were unlikely. The 1977 SFWMD conceptual approval of the drainage plan for the development was followed by the issuance of a construction permit for the westernmost seven sections on March 15, 1979. Throughout this period construction was continuing. The drainage system as approved consists of grassed lot, roadside, and collector "swales" together with a retention area comprised of natural wetlands in the area of the property known as Ash Slough. The volume of water leaving the property after development will be the same as that leaving the property before development. The drainage conveyances are designed with gradually sloping sides, vary to widths of over 100 feet for the larger collector conveyances, and have depths varying from 2 feet for the "lateral" swales to 3 feet for the larger collector swales. The groundwater table in the area of the project site varies from zero to approximately 30 inches below ground surface. The swales were designed at the request of SFWMD in lieu of the canals proposed within the same easements in the original drainage plan for the development. It appears from the evidence that these drainage conveyances are designed so as to contain contiguous areas of standing or flowing water only following the occurrence of rainfall or flooding. Although some testimony indicated that these conveyances contained contiguous areas of standing water, these observations were made either at isolated times during the progress of construction or soon after a major hurricane passed through the area. Since the purpose of the "swales" is to facilitate drainage from the property, it would appear necessary from an engineering viewpoint to allow some period of time after construction of the swales for them to stabilize to make a valid determination that they will not function as designed. Accordingly, it would not appear unusual that the swales contain areas of standing water until they have been given ample opportunity to stabilize. On the basis of the record in this proceeding, a determination simply cannot be made at this point in time that the swales will not function as designed. Following DPC's initial determination of no jurisdiction in 1971 and 1972, it and DER, its successor agency, were not involved with the project until 1974, when DPC received an inquiry concerning land sales matters from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 1975, a DER staff member conducted a critical review of the Project and filed an internal memorandum faulting the project on the same essential grounds that are the basis for the Notice of Violation issued June 1, 1979. DER representatives participated in various SFWMD meetings from 1975 to 1977 when the conceptual approval of the drainage plan for the project was discussed. During this period, SFWMD forwarded copies of various materials dealing with the project to DER. Further, a DER representative attended the public hearing on September 8, 1977, when the conceptual approval of the project was granted by SFWMD. Respondents' first indication of DER's renewed interest in the development was a letter from DER Subdistrict Manager Warren Strahm to Robert Birenbaum on June 23, 1977. This letter stated, in part, that: The above referenced application/staff report has been supplied to this office by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). It has been determined that your project is subject to Chapters 403 and/or 253, Florida Statutes. A review of drainage plans by our staff indicates the referenced project will comply with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes permit requirements for pollutant discharge. Since these plans have been incorporated into the SFWMD permit, no discharge permit or monitoring in addition to SFWMD permit requirement will be required by the Department at this time. It appears, however, that the referenced project may fall within the permitting requirements set forth in Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to F.A.C. 17-4.28(2) should any excavation take place in submerged lands or within the transitional zone of submerged lands, dredge and fill permits will be required by this Department prior to commencement of said activi- ties. [Emphasis added.] Please contact Mr. Roger G. Gallop, at the Fort Pierce Branch Office, telephone (305) 464-8525, at your convenience in order to discuss the need for a construction dredge and fill permit. Thank you for your cooperation. Three months later, in a letter from James Brindell to Coquina, Respondents were notified that: A review, by this agency, of the plans associated with your Surface Water Management Permit Applica- tion No. 02187-A indicates that permits will be required from the Department of Environmental Regulation pursuant to Chapter 403 and/or Chapter 253, Florida Statutes for the construction con- templated. Specifically, permits will be required for the construction and operation of discharge structures as well as for any dredging and/or filling in the waters of the state including the submerged lands and transitional zone of these submerged lands. Additionally, certification pursuant to section 401 of F.L. 92-500 may be required. Formal or conceptual appova1 of your project by the South Florida Water Management District does not imply that your project will satisfy the requirements of this agency. Please contact Mr. Warren G. Strahm, Subdistrict Manager, 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, phone 305/689-5800, at your earliest convenience concerning application for these permits. (Emphasis added). This letter was followed one-and-one-half months later by a "Letter of Notice" from DER advising Respondents that DER had reason to believe the project was in violation of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and requesting CFC to cease any further work. Throughout this series of correspondence, CFC and Coquina maintained that DER did not have permit jurisdiction. This position was reasserted in a letter of November 1, 1977, from Emerson Allsworth, counsel for Coquina, to DER. During this period, numerous meetings were held involving representatives of Respondents and DER in which Respondents were urged by DER to apply for permits. Respondents failed to do so, and, on June 1, 1979, DER issued its Notice of Violation. Natural drainage from the property occurs southwestward into an area known as Ash Slough; southward from the central portion of the property into Gore Slough; and from the northeast section of the property into Company Slough. The headwaters of both Ash Slough and Gore Slough originate on the project site and periodically extend off Respondents' property to the south to join the waters of Chandler Slough. Chandler Slough, in turn, eventually empties into Lake Okeechobee 11 to 15 miles from the property. Company Slough also extends off the project site eastward onto the lands of others. There is, however, insufficient evidence in this record from which to conclude that Company Slough regularly exchanges flow with any other body of water. A "slough", as that term is used in the context of this proceeding, is a surface conveyance pathway for waters whose lateral boundaries are not as well-defined as a stream bed, and whose rate of flow is relatively slow. Due to the flat topography of the project site, Ash, Gore and Company Sloughs have imprecise boundaries, and their rates of flow appear to range at various times from very slow to nonexistent. By Cease and Desist Order dated March 28, 1978, the United States Army Corps of Engineers required Respondents to halt any further work then being conducted on the project, asserting that work in progress at that time was being conducted in waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, without first having acquired a permit from the Corps of Engineers. This Order provided, in part, that: Section 301(a) of the [Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972] makes it unlawful to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States unless author- ized by a Section 404 permit issued by the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers. Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 prohibits the excavation or depositing of material or erecting any struc- tures in navigable waters of the United States unless authorized by a Department of the Army permit. The work referred to in the paragraph above is deemed to have occurred in waters subject to these statutory requirements without the requisite permits and is considered unlaw- ful by this office. Prior to 25 July, the Corps of Engineers limited the requirement for Section 404 type permits to areas either below the mean high water line in tidal areas or below the ordinary high water line of rivers and streams which either now sup- port, had supported, or were capable of supporting interstate commerce. However, on 25 July 1975, the regulatory juris- diction of the District was expanded to all waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands. [Emphasis add.] Subsequently, however, by memorandum dated May 17, 1978, the United States Army Corps of Engineers determined that it did not have jurisdiction over Respondent's activities for the following reasons: In the northeast and eastern portion of the tract the flagponds and saw grass prairies are isolated with no discernible drainage sloughs or patterns. The other area of concern, in the south west sector, contains isolated ponds and an old man-made drainage canal that comprises shallow, intermittent potholes above the natural headwaters of Ash and Gore Sloughs. There was no recognizable flow in any part of the canal and the point at which average annual flow appear to be 5 c.f.s. or greater is located to the south a considerable distance from the subject tract. The project, as proposed, will not destroy or threaten any endangered species or their habitat nor adversely impact water quality of the ultimate receiving waters in Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee. In 1971, the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture classified Ash and Gore Sloughs, as well as Fish Slough, to which Company Slough is alleged by DER to connect, as "intermittent". This determination is supported by hydrological data compiled by the South Florida Water Management District which shows no net flow in Chandler Slough for as many as six months in 1975 and four months in 1976. In the South Florida Water Management District report concerning flow patterns in Chandler Slough, it was pointed out that: The climate in this portion of Florida is subtropical with warm summers and moderate winters. Rainfall is seasonal with about 75 percent of the total occur- ring in a well-defined wet season, from May to October. This distribution of rainfall results in considerable surface water flow during part of the year. During the late winter and early spring many of the creeks and sloughs, such as Chandler Slough, become completely dry. [Emphasis added.] In addition, testimony in the record in this proceeding establishes that on at least one occasion during the time in which construction on the property was being conducted, Company Slough was completely dry. There is no data in the record quantifying the annual flow of water from Ash and Gore Sloughs into Chandler Slough. Further, there is no evidence concerning the periodicity of any such water exchanges between Ash and Gore Sloughs and Chandler Slough. As indicated above, the evidence establishes that Chandler Slough, which is the larger collector slough into which both Ash and Gore sloughs allegedly discharge, periodically becomes "completely dry." DER witnesses testified that they had observed contiguous areas of standing water in Ash, Gore and Company Sloughs during visits to the site, and had also determined the existence of an exchange of waters between Ash, Gore and Company Sloughs with other sloughs connecting to Chandler Slough by analyzing aerial photographs. However, those aerial photographs were not made a part of the record in this proceeding. Additionally, the relatively few visits to the site by these witnesses, in the absence of validly derived data establishing pertinent flow rates, is insufficient to establish "normal" conditions in the area. This is especially true in light of the aforementioned countervailing determinations based upon data compiled by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Department of Agriculture and the South Florida Water Management District. The evidence shows that some of the types of vegetation listed in DER's vegetation indices by which DER determines whether areas are "submerged lands" or "transitional zones" of submerged lands have been found on the project site. Among the types of vegetation observed in and around Ash, Gore and Company Sloughs are maidencane, water willow, pickerelweed, button bush, saw grass and St. John's wort. Although these species were detected in some locations by visual observation, apparently no attempt was made to quantify these plants vis-a-vis other vegetative types, nor were any physical measurements made to locate their boundaries. In a report dated August 26, 1977, the SFWMD attempted to identify the acreage, but not boundaries, of wetlands on the development site. The findings of that report show that approximately 2,014 of 14,080 acres, or 14.3 percent of the total site, contains wetlands vegetation. The report also indicates that the wetlands vegetation is scattered in different locations over the site, with the median occurrence being 68 acres per 640-acre section. DER presented quantified evidence showing turbidity readings in the Ash Slough area of the development during the construction of swales in August, 1979, of 325 Jackson Units and November and December, 1979, of 155 and 176 Jackson Units, respectively. It should be noted that these readings were performed after the filing of the Notice of Violation herein. Although samples of August 6, 1979, were taken without a background sample in Ash Slough, the evidence establishes that background readings in Ash Slough were less than 25 Jackson Units. The evidence clearly establishes that DER's water quality sampling and analysis were conducted in accordance with applicable requirements of Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. The evidence establishes that these readings are attributable to construction of swales and control structures and would not be expected to continue after completion of construction. There is no evidence to show the duration of the discharges resulting in these turbidity readings, nor is there any showing of actual damage to animal, plant or aquatic life. Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact in this proceeding. To the extent that those findings of fact are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and the Property. The Respondent, HORNE, owns or has options to purchase approximately 24.35 acres of real property at the southwest corner of U.S. Highway 41 and State Road 50 Bypass in Brooksville, Florida. The Petitioner, the ASSOCIATES, owns approximately 67.5 acres of real property to the south and downstream from the HORNE property. The ASSOCIATES' property is presently undeveloped. The HORNE property contains an existing Publix shopping plaza, a mobile home sales office and vacant lands. The Publix plaza was previously permitted by the DISTRICT before it was constructed. The Surface Water Permit Application On August 7, 1992, HORNE submitted its application for surface water permit No. 400317.02. The application sought approval to construct a surface water management system for a proposed new K-Mart store on HORNE's property. On November 3, 1992, the DISTRICT issued notice of final agency action approving issuance of permit No. 400317.02 to HORNE. The day before the original final hearing in this matter scheduled for March 1993, new information from a study called the Peck Sink Watershed Study came to light which rendered the project as then designed unpermittable. This information resulted in the surface water management system being redesigned. On April 1, 1993, the DISTRICT notified all of the parties that the redesigned surface water management met District rule criteria. This resulted in issuance of what became known as the April 1 submittal. On May 12, 1993, in response to concerns raised by the ASSOCIATES at depositions on May 10, 1993, HORNE produced the May 12 submittal and provided it to all parties on that same date. The changes in design reflected on the May 12 submittal related to lowering the pond bottoms one foot below the orifices and changing the contour lines on the outside of Pond 5A. On May 13, 1993, further minor changes were made to the permit materials. Specifically, the changes were: reflecting on the engineering worksheets the lowering of the pond bottoms accomplished on the May 12 submittal, correction of the contour line on the outside of Pond 5A and showing the amount of additional fill into the 100-year floodplain caused by the addition of the contour line to the outside of Pond 5A. In reviewing HORNE's application, the District applied the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code, and the Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications. Compliance with DISTRICT Permitting Criteria Water Quantity The main two areas considered by the DISTRICT in assessing water quantity in a closed basin are: attenuating the peak rate of discharge for the 25 runoff for the 100 The peak rate of runoff for this project for the 25 (2) cubic feet per second (cfs) less in the post-developed condition than in the pre-developed condition, as shown on the April 1 submittal. No changes were made between the April 1 and May 12 or 13 submittals relating to the peak rate of discharge. The difference in the volume of runoff between the pre-developed and post-developed condition during the 100-year storm is being retained on site, as shown on the April 1 submittal. Therefore, DISTRICT rule criteria for the peak rate and volume of runoff were met on the April 1 submittal. Lowering the bottoms of the detention ponds on the May 12 and 13 submittals resulted in additional post 100 system, as redesigned to retain this additional 100-year volume, exceeds the DISTRICT's 100 Floodplain Encroachment Under the DISTRICT's floodplain encroachment standards, any fill within the 100 out an equivalent volume of fill elsewhere on the property. HORNE's application satisfies the DISTRICT's floodplain standards. HORNE is filling 1.59 acre feet of the floodplain and creating 1.75 acre feet of compensation. The floodplain compensation will be above the seasonal high water table, as required by Section 3.2.1.4 of the DISTRICT's Basis of Review. The original, existing seasonal high water table will be lowered as a result of the excavation so that the entire floodplain compensation area will be above the seasonal high water table. Water Quality A wet detention system as proposed by HORNE is an acceptable means under the DISTRICT's rules of treating runoff for water quality purposes. The bottoms of the ponds, as shown on the May 12 submittal, are all at least one foot below the orifice elevations, as required by the Basis of Review. Thus, the project met all relevant DISTRICT water quality requirements as of the May 12 submittal. Operation and Maintenance DISTRICT rules require that reasonable assurances be provided that the surface water management system can be effectively operated and maintained. HORNE will be the operation and maintenance entity for this surface water management system. The DISTRICT's main concerns at the time of permit review are that the design of the surface water management system not be an exotic design, that the design insure that littoral zones can be established, that the system orifice can be cleaned, that the overall system will be stable and that there is a viable operation and maintenance entity. HORNE's project can be effectively operated and maintained. Remaining District Rule Criteria As stipulated to by the parties that the project will not cause adverse impacts to wetlands and will not diminish the capability of a lake or other impoundment to fluctuate through the full range established for it in Chapter 40D Additionally, the proof establishes that the project will not cause adverse impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows will not adversely affect the public health and safety; is consistent with the requirements of other public agencies; will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District; will not interfere with the legal rights of others as defined in Rule 17 Objections Raised by the ASSOCIATES at the Hearing Pond Slopes and Operation and Maintenance Contrary to the assertion that the pond slopes will not be stable and cannot be effectively operated and maintained, the pond side slopes at this project are going to be constructed out of a heavy clay type of soil. Sodded side slopes of 1:1, as proposed for three of the ponds, can be stabilized and effectively operated and maintained. Although there is no DISTRICT requirement that sodded side slopes be mowed, so on these slopes could, if necessary, be cut. In the event the side slopes were to erode, easy repair is possible. All of the ponds except one side of one pond have areas at least 20 feet wide and slopes no steeper than 4:1 where maintenance can be performed. With regard to the pond that does not have this characteristic, equipment can enter and perform necessary maintenance. Water Quality Treatment Concerns that at least a portion of the bottoms of the ponds need to be below the seasonal high water table and that circulation of the ponds needs to be maximized in order to meet water quality treatment criteria are misplaced since there is no requirement that the pond bottoms be below the seasonal high water table in wet detention systems such as the one at issue in this case. Further, the entire bottoms of the ponds are littoral zone and meet DISTRICT rule requirements that 35 per cent of the pond be littoral zone, concentrated at the outfall. Additionally, the ponds at issue maximize circulation through the location of points of inflow and outflow. Floodplain Mitigation Concerns that volume in the floodplain mitigation area is not available because of problems with the seasonal high water table are also misplaced. Specifically, the floodplain area encroachment requiring mitigation relates to Pond 5A. There is more than enough volume within the area which will be excavated to compensate for the area where the fill will be deposited. The seasonal high water table will be at or below the floodplain mitigation area after the required excavation takes place. Although the seasonal high water table will be lowered where the excavation or cut is made and later raised where the fill is placed, no adverse effects on the water table will result from such lowering and raising of the water table. Volume In Pond 5A Allegations that the May 12 and 13 submittals reflect that Pond 5A has less volume available than the modeling calculations contemplate are incorrect. The changes in the contour lines of Pond 5A on the May 12 and 13 submittals from what was shown on the April 1 submittal occurred on the outside of the pond. The volume on the inside of the pond was not reduced actually increased when the pond bottom was lowered for water quality purposes. In determining how much volume a pond is to have when it is constructed, the computer modeling figures take precedence over the scaled plan drawings. In this case, the computer modeling figures never changed after the April 1 submittal. HORNE submitted a computer model that calculated the volume of Pond 5A. The output data clearly reflects that the top of the bank was 82 feet. Publix's Status as an Existing Site Assertions that the Publix site should have been considered in its pre-developed state since there will be approximately one acre foot of volume of runoff, or possibly less, leaving the site without retention are without validity. The Publix plaza was permitted by the DISTRICT in 1985 and constructed in 1986. The amount of peak flow discharge and overall discharge is currently authorized by a valid MSSW permit. When the DISTRICT reviews a permit application, all existing permitted surface water management systems must be accepted in their present state. There is no authority in the DISTRICT's rules to consider an existing permitted site in its pre Even if the Publix site is considered in its pre project has only .02 of an acre foot more volume of runoff in its post-developed condition than in the pre Storage of 100-Year Volume Allegations that the amount of 100-year volume being retained on site in the ponds has been incorrectly calculated by the DISTRICT and HORNE are also invalid. The DISTRICT's rules require that the difference between the pre- and post-development volume for the 100-year storm be retained on site. In the ponds which are the subject of this proceeding, the 100-year volume is retained in the ponds below the orifice. This volume cannot leave the site through the orifice; it can only leave the site by percolation into the ground or evaporation into the air.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting HORNE's Application for Surface Water Management Permit No. 400317.02. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX The following constitutes my rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties Proposed findings submitted by Petitioners (Petitioner's proposed findings begin at paragraph number 13.) 13.-19. Accepted. 20.-30. Rejected, unnecessary. 31.-44. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer findings. 45.-47. Accepted. 48.-77. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer findings. 78.-79. Rejected, recitation of documents. 80.-84. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 85.-88. Rejected, unnecessary. 89.-93. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 94.-95. Rejected, unnecessary. 96. Accepted. 97.-98. Rejected, subordinate, weight of the evidence. 99.-100. Rejected, unnecessary. 101.-126. Rejected, subordinate. 127. Accepted. 128.-129. Rejected, unnecessary. 130.-135. Rejected, argument. 136.-144. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Respondents Joint Proposed Findings. 1.-56. Accepted, though not verbatim. 58.-59. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: David Smolker, Esquire Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn 2700 Landmark Centre 401 East Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Rodney S. Fields, Jr., Esquire Blain & Cone, P.A. 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Richard Tschantz, Esquire Mark F. Lapp, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
