The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP or Department) should exempt Petitioner's alleged maintenance-dredging from wetland resource permitting under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 312.050(1)(e).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has applied for a maintenance-dredging exemption from wetland resource permitting for two channels in Goose Bayou on the two ends of a U-shaped upland cut canal adjacent to Goose Bayou. Rule 62-312 provides in pertinent part: No permit shall be required under this chapter for dredging or filling . . . for the projects listed below. * * * (e) The performance of maintenance dredging of existing manmade canals, channels, and intake and discharge structures, where the spoil material is to be removed and deposited on a self-contained, upland spoil site which will prevent the escape of the spoil material and return water from the spoil site into surface waters of the state, provided no more dredging is performed than is necessary to restore the canal, channels, and intake and discharge structures to original design specifications, and provided that control devices are used at the dredge site to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. This exemption shall apply to all canals constructed before April 3, 1970, and to those canals constructed on or after April 3, 1970, pursuant to all necessary state permits. This exemption shall not apply to the removal of a natural or manmade barrier separating a canal or canal system from adjacent waters of the state. Where no previous permit has been issued by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers for construction or maintenance dredging of the existing manmade canal or intake or discharge structure, such maintenance dredging shall be limited to a depth of no more than 5 feet below mean low water. There was no evidence of any dredging or application for dredging in the vicinity of the proposed alleged "maintenance- dredging" prior to 1971. There was evidence and a stipulation that Heritage Homes of Fort Walton, Inc. (Heritage Homes), applied to the State of Florida in or around 1971 to dredge two navigation channels in Goose Bayou for a project known as Venetian Villas and to remove two plugs separating a land-locked U-shaped canal from Goose Bayou. The navigation channels were to be 50 feet wide by five feet deep. The southern channel was to be 640 feet long, while the northern channel was to be 450 feet long. This proposal did not receive any governmental authorization. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that in 1973, based on the proposed project modifications, the State of Florida Department of Pollution Control (DPC), a predecessor of DEP, issued water quality certification, and the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (BOT) issued a permit for the project, as modified. It appears that the issuance of the water qualify certification and BOT permit was part of some kind of settlement reached between Heritage Homes and the State of Florida for dredge-and-fill violations. It appears that the settlement also involved the conveyance of ten acres of land to the State of Florida in lieu of payment for the spoil used in filling the marsh lands between Goose Bayou and the U-shaped canal. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, at some point in time, the DPC certification and a BOT permit were transferred from Heritage Homes to West Florida Construction Company (West Florida). There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, as of July 13, 1973, neither Heritage Homes nor West Florida had applied to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a permit. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, over time and after receiving comments from various governmental agencies, West Florida's proposed project changed to involve a yacht basin/marina, a proposed southern channel, elimination of the proposal for a northern channel, and plugging the U-shaped canal to keep it separate from Goose Bayou. The location of the single, southern channel under this proposal was different from the proposed location of the southern channel under the Heritage Homes proposal, which was to start at the southernmost arm of the U-shaped canal. Instead, under West Florida's proposal, the single, southern channel was to be located directly north of the southernmost arm of the U-shaped canal. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, by August 21, 1974, West Florida applied to the Corps for a permit to dredge the single, southern channel (50 feet wide, 565 feet long, and four feet deep), to keep the northern canal plugged, and to construct a yacht basin/marina. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended several changes to the project before they could recommend that the Corps issue a permit for the 1974 application; however, it does not appear that the recommended changes were ever made or that the Corps ever took any action on the 1974 application or issued any permit for the proposed project. At some point in time after 1974, the two plugs were removed, which connected the U-shaped canal to Goose Bayou. There is now a wide, shallow channel from the waterward ends of the U-shaped canal into Goose Bayou. The evidence did not prove that these channels, which Petitioner now seeks to maintenance- dredge, were ever dredged by man. Their width and shallow depth are more consistent with natural scouring from surface water runoff leaving the canal system at low and extreme low tides than with dredging. There was no evidence of soil borings, which could have verified whether the channels had been dredged by man. Even if originally dredged, there was no evidence that a dredged channel had been maintained over the years. Mr. Stoutamire testified that DEP does not consider maintenance- dredging to include the restoration or rebuilding of a channel that has not been maintained and no longer exists. This interpretation of the maintenance-dredging exemption is reasonable. Mr. Stoutamire also testified that DEP interprets the last sentence of Rule 62-312.050(1)(e), limiting maintenance- dredging to no more than five feet below mean low water where no previous permit has been issued, to refer to canals constructed before April 3, 1970, since maintenance-dredging of canals constructed after that date would not be exempt if not previously permitted. This interpretation is reasonable.2 Petitioner's application did not state that control devices would be used to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during dredging.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner a maintenance-dredging exemption under Rule 62- 312.050(1)(e). DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the DER should exempt the stormwater discharge anticipated from the initial phase of a residential development proposed by Sam Rodgers from the licensing requirements laid down by Rule 17- 4.248, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Sam Rodgers (applicant) proposes to alter an existing stormwater conveyance system in connection with transforming part of an orange grove in Polk County into a residential development, Foxwood Lake Estates. If all goes according to plan, the development will eventually occupy all or parts of four distinct basins. The applicant's agents furnished DER data pertaining to all four basins. The only discharge at issue in these proceedings, however, is the stormwater expected to drain from Basin III. See DER Exhibit No. 1, Master Plan-Key Map. Phase I of the development, a trailer park, would lie completely within the 123-acre expanse of Basin III, but would not completely displace the citrus trees. According to the applicant, roofs, streets, parking lots and other impervious surfaces will comprise some two-fifths of the area, when developed. DER Exhibit No. 1. Construction activity increases suspended solids in stormwater draining from construction sites. Lesser but still elevated levels of suspended solids can be expected when people take up residence. Heavy metals from automobile exhaust will end up in stormwater draining from Basin III, if some of the people moving in bring cars. Residential development also increases the biochemical oxygen demand of stormwater washing over it. The applicant proposes sodded roadside swales of varying slope to collect stormwater and, together with occasional pipes under roads, to convey it to an existing pond (Foxwood Lake), which is to be enlarged to an area of 4.82 acres. Foxwood Lake would be 12 feet deep in places. Testimony that the swales and pond would fill with silt in two or three years has not been credited, although it may not take centuries, as another expert testified. The swales will require maintenance and the applicant plans to hire somebody for that purpose. The applicant also contemplates dedicating some road rights-of-way, including swales, to Polk County. Lake Foxwood's present surface elevation of 160.58 feet above mean sea level would remain virtually unchanged, during times of moderate rainfall, at 161 feet above mean sea level. Neither groundwater tables nor the soil's storage capacity would be perceptibly altered, even during periods when the lake was temporarily elevated by the control structure planned for it. The applicant has agreed to a design that would detain on his property a volume of water equal to one inch of rainfall over the whole of Basin III for five to seven days. At the western end of Foxwood Lake, a PVC overflow pipe with a diameter of six inches would be installed in a concrete outfall structure at an elevation of 161 feet above mean sea level. At 164.55 feet above mean sea level, a vertical V-notch in the weir would allow water to spill out of Foxwood Lake, if stormwater should raise the lake's surface to that elevation. Both the overflow pipe and the V-notch would empty through a pipe 36 inches across into an intermittent tributary to Blackwater Creek, which the parties stipulated to be Class III waters. The stream into which water leaving Foxwood Lake would flow meanders west to Martin Lake, about a mile away. James M. Pollock, Jr., owns property on the western edge of Martin Lake and farms land on the lake's edge. Mr. Forrest Sawyer of 1712 Gibsonia-Galloway Road owns land to the north of Mr. Rodgers' property. Mr. Sawyer's property is generally higher ground than the Rodgers property, although three or four acres of the Sawyer property lie in a low area into which drain water from the Rodgers property as well as water from elsewhere on the Sawyer property. No water drains onto the Sawyer property from Basin III, however. Charles C. Krug, his sister, and his brother together own 40 acres abutting the west side of the northwest 40 acres of the Rodgers property. A dike along the southern boundary of the Krug property prevents water entering from the south. No water has drained onto the Krug property from the Rodgers property in the last 45 years. Dorothy Thompson lives 300 or 400 feet east of Orange Avenue which is the eastern boundary of the Rodgers property. There is a small area east of Orange Avenue in Basin III which drains west through three culverts onto the Rodgers property. The Thompson home property evidently drains to the east; however, only since the widening of U.S. Highway 98, which runs north and south to the east of Mrs. Thompson's property have heavy rains resulted in flooding on her property. The applicant gave DER notice of the changes in stormwater discharge proposed for Basin III. Water discharged from the system the applicant proposes would meet the criteria for Class III waters, according to the uncontroverted evidence. Virtually all pollutants except colloidal solids should precipitate or be filtered out by the time water leaves Foxwood Lake for waters of the state. Respondent's witness' suggestion that the swales be paved to decrease the siltation overlooks the filtration and percolation grassy swales make possible. At one time DER required that developers design stormwater systems to detain, instead of a one-inch storm, the mean annual storm, for five to seven days. The applicant's system is designed to avoid any increase in the present rate of discharge under weather conditions up to and including a 100 year 24-hour storm.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DER grant Sam Rodgers' application for exemption from stormwater discharge licensure for Phase I of the proposed Foxwood Lake Estates. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1980 COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew Reilly, Esquire Post Office Box 2039 Haines City, Florida 33844 Walter R. Mattson, Esquire 1240 East Lime Street Lakeland, Florida 33801 David Levin, Esquire 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Kyle Brothers Land Company, Inc. filed its application with the Department of Environmental Regulation to excavate four canals and to unplug two canals which they had already dug within its development in Port Pine Heights located on Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. The application of Kyle Brothers Land Company, Inc. was introduced as Composite Exhibit No. 1 and a plat of the proposed development was introduced as Exhibit 9. The proposed activity would be constructed on Class 3 waters as defined in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C. Test data submitted shows that the water quality of the water in the existing canals meets or exceeds the standards established in Section 17-3.09, F.A.C. The proposed canals, as well as the existing canals, are being developed as residential home sites. Two potential threats exist to the maintenance of water quality standards within the canals. The first threat is the short-term effect of increased turbidity of the waters due to the construction of the proposed activity. The second threat is the long-term effect of the increased pollution of the waters resulting from waste disposal through proposed septic tank systems to be used in the residential home sites adjoining the proposed and existing canals. The permit application appraisal, Exhibit 2, indicates that the short- term effects of increased turbidity could be controlled by the use of plugs, screens, and daily testing for turbidity and dissolved oxygen. The evidence further shows a variance in the depth of the existing canals and the two plugged canals. The two plugged canals and several of the existing canals have a depth greater than the central canal. The variance in depth permits the accumulation of debris and silt in the finger canals which under certain conditions could be stirred up and become suspended in the waters of the canals increasing the turbidity of the canals and violating the water quality standards. To prevent this from occurring these canals would have to be filled to bring them to the depth of the central canal. The long-term threat to water quality in the canals is the introduction into the canals of nutrients and chemicals attributable to surface water runoff and the proposed septic tank systems to be utilized on the residential home sites. Control of surface water runoff can be obtained by backs loping the uplands away from the canals. The control of nutrient loading associated with the septic tank systems is more complex. The Declaration of Restrictions for Port Pine Heights, Exhibit 7, recites that sewage disposal shall be by septic tank or central disposal plant. However, the plans submitted by the Applicant do not indicate any provision for establishment of a central disposal plant. Further, under the provisions of the deed restrictions there is no requirement that a resident of Port Pine Heights use a central disposal plant even if such a system were available. The current residents of Port Pine Heights currently use septic tank waste disposal systems; however, the number of current residents is substantially less than the number of residents that Port Pine Heights is designed to accommodate. The disposal of sewage by septic tanks will result in the introduction in the canal waters of partially treated effluent through exchange with subsurface waters in the porous limestone substrata present in the area. To maintain the water quality at the required level, the waste effluent from the residential development must be prevented from entering into the canal. Because of the substantial difference in the level of development existing in Port Pine Heights currently and the potential level of development, the test data and the projections based upon that data do not give reasonable assurances that the increased pollutions attributable to the use of septic tanks would not violate water-quality standards.
Recommendation Until the Applicant makes a reasonable, affirmative showing that the long- term effect of the activity will not violate the water-quality standards, the application should be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION KYLE BROTHERS LAND COMPANY, INC. Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-607 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to an operating permit for an existing domestic wastewater treatment facility operating in Naples.
Findings Of Fact On May 10, 1991, Respondent issued Petitioner a five- year permit to operate a 0.3 million gallon per day (GPD) domestic wastewater treatment plant known as the Rookery Bay facility in Naples. This permit, which is number DO11-187204, allowed Petitioner to operate an extended aeration plant, using chlorine for basic disinfection and disposing of the reclaimed water in two percolation ponds. The 1991 permit required Petitioner to allow Respondent access to the facility for inspections at reasonable times, notify Respondent of any violations of any permit conditions, maintain total chlorine residual of at least 0.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of effluent sample after at least 15 minutes’ contact time at maximum daily flow, maintain annual average effluent quality values for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) of not more than 20 mg/L of effluent sample with maximum effluent quality concentrations of 60 mg/L in any single effluent sample, maintain a monthly average effluent quality value for fecal coliform of not more than 200 per 100 ml of effluent sample with a maximum effluent quality value of 800 per 100 ml in any single effluent sample, notify Respondent of any discharge from the percolation pond overflows, and monitor influent loading to the facility and apply for a permit modification if the monthly average influent flows approach or exceed the design capacity of 0.3 MGD or if the facility violates treatment standards. Respondent also issued Petitioner a five-year permit to operate a 0.15 GPD domestic wastewater treatment plant at the Rookery Bay facility. This permit, which is number DO11-167093, allowed Petitioner to operate a contact stabilization process plant. On December 29, 1995, Petitioner submitted a renewal application for permit number DO11-167093. Although the permit number references the smaller tank, the renewal application requests a permitted capacity of 0.3 MGD. By Notice of Permit Denial dated February 9, 1996, Respondent denied the permit application on the ground that Petitioner could not provide reasonable assurance that it would operate the facility in compliance with state standards based on a “continued and long standing pattern of noncompliance and violation of . . . rules and standards.” Petitioner’s operation of the Rookery Bay treatment plant has been poor. Respondent has brought an enforcement action against Petitioner, which signed a consent final judgment in January 1994. The consent final judgment required Respondent to pay $4500 in civil penalties. As it applied to the Rookery Bay facility, the consent final order required Petitioner to evaluate the facility to discover the causes of past violations and modify the facility to eliminate these violations. But Petitioner has not complied with material provisions of the consent final judgment. Petitioner’s operator has been held in contempt of court several times for violations at Rookery Bay and a nearby smaller treatment facility known as Port au Prince. Petitioner has several times refused Respondent’s representatives reasonable access to the Rookery Bay facility. At least twice, Petitioner has failed to advise Respondent of equipment failures that resulted in violations of treatment standards. On January 11, 1995, Petitioner cut off the power for several hours to a lift station pump serving a nearby a condominium complex. Predictably, the sewage backed up and overflowed into the street. Petitioner failed to restore the power timely or remove the overflowed sewage. On several occasions, raw or inadequately treated sewage has leaked from the tanks at the Rookery Bay facility. Petitioner has failed to eliminate this problem over the course of its five-year operating permit. On numerous occasions, Respondent’s representatives have detected violations of effluent quality. These violations have arisen inadequate detention time in the chlorine contact chamber. Consequently, the TSS and CBOD levels have repeatedly exceeded permitted standards. The parties dispute the adequacy of the capacity of the Rookery Bay facility. There is considerable evidence, including one statement in the application, that suggests that the facility’s capacity is seriously inadequate. Either the capacity of the Rookery Bay is, and has been, inadequate--in which case at least some of the violations are attributable to overcapacity operation--or, if the facility has had adequate capacity, the operational competence of Petitioner is below the minimum level necessary to provide reasonable assurance of proper operations at this facility in the future. Most likely, the Rookery Bay facility lacks adequate capacity, at least part of the year, and Petitioner lacks the minimum requisite competence to operate the facility in a responsible manner. The strongest evidence in the record suggests that the Rookery Bay facility serves, during peak season, 1500 mobile home connections and 400 apartment connections. These connections generate about 377,500 GPD of raw sewage. A slightly lower value is probable after consideration of the likely presence of recreational vehicles among the mobile home count. But this reduction, even without adjustment for dry-season infiltration and inflow, would not yield sufficient savings in raw sewage as to provide reasonable assurance that the Rookery Bay facility has adequate capacity to serve the present demand or adequate capacity to serve the demand projected over the five-year term of the permit that Petitioner seeks. Even if one were to credit Petitioner’s volume-to- capacity calculations, the results fail to constitute reasonable assurance of violation-free operation of the Rookery Bay facility. Petitioner's calculations leave little if any margin for error at present demand levels, and, given Petitioner’s singularly poor operating history at this facility, these calculations provide poor assurance of compliant operation of this troubled facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioner’s renewal application for a domestic wastewater treatment operating permit for the Rookery Bay facility. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 9th day of May, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Sanford M. Martin 2500 Airport Road, Suite 315 Naples, Florida 34112-4882 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact On September 9, 1983, Intervenor, Jacksonville Port Authority (JPA), made application to Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), for a dredge and fill permit and water quality certification, to construct a commercial docking facility on the west channel of Blount Island, and to dredge material adjacent to the proposed dock for a navigation channel. JPA is a body-politic and corporate operating under the authority of Chapter 63-1447, Laws of Florida. It was expressly created for the public purpose of constructing, developing and operating marine and airport terminals in Jacksonville, Florida. Blount Island is a spoil island comprised of approximately 800 acres, and lies in the St. Johns River, at Jacksonville, Florida. In 1964 the island was deeded by the State of Florida to the JPA for the purpose of constructing a port. To date, approximately 40 percent of the island has been developed. There are 4,300 feet of dock on the main channel and one dock under construction on the west channel. Over two and a half million tons of cargo presently pass through the Blount Island terminal each year. The permit, if granted, would allow JPA to construct a "T" shaped docking facility on the northwest shoreline of Blount Island. The pier would be 59 feet wide and extend 250 feet from the shoreline toward the west channel. The pier would terminate with a "T" head, 70 feet wide and 200 feet long. Associated mooring and bresting dolphins connected to a 1,500 foot catwalk would be constructed parallel to, and shoreward of, the "T" head. JPA proposes to construct the facility on open concrete piles. No fueling or toilet facilities will be constructed on the pier. The proposed facility is graphically illustrated by the attached excerpt from Intervenor's Exhibit 1. The permit would also allow the placement of riprap along the shoreline adjacent to the facility and landward of the Mean Highwater (MH) line, and the dredging of approximately 35,000 cubic yards of material to provide a 126 foot by 2,000 foot access channel, with a depth of -30 feet Mean Sea Level, to the facility from the existing west channel. The proposed facility, a roll-on/roll-off dock (RO-RO dock) would accommodate two deep water vessels at any one time. The vessels would moor stern to the dock, and containerized cargo would be loaded or unloaded from the ship's rear unloading ramp by trucks towing the wheeled containers. The facility, and associated water runoff, will not pose a water quality problem. On April 9, 1984 DER issued its notice of intent to grant the permit to JPA. A timely request for hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Fla. Stat., was filed by Petitioner. JPA proposes to dredge the subject channel by using a hydraulic suction dredge. The dredge would pump a slurry of water and the dredge material through a pipeline to the dredge spoil disposal area on the island. The dredge would act as a vacuum cleaner. As the materials were dislodged from the bottom, they would be immediately sucked into the dredge pipe where they would remain until they were ejected at the spoil site. Samples of the materials to be dredged establish that they are nontoxic and consist of relatively clean silky sand. Because of the sand's particle size, settlement time and chemical constituents, the dredge materials will pose no water quality problems. JPA proposes to dispose of the spoil materials at an existing spoil disposal site on Blount Island. The disposal area consists of two settlement ponds of different elevations, connected by throttling pipes. The dredge materials will be deposited in the upper pond and over the course of two and a half days the materials will settle, and the waters will be slowly returned to the St. Johns River. Turbidity at the point of discharge will not exceed the background. The shoreline area immediately adjacent to the proposed dock contains a zone of tidal shoreline marsh varying in width from 15 to 60 feet. This area will not be disturbed. No submerged vegetation exists. While some benthic organisms will be eliminated during the dredging, the area will quickly recolonize. No clam or oyster beds exist in the vicinity of the project. Petitioner expressed her personal concern about the potential impact of the proposed facility on the manatee. Although manatee have in the past been sighted in the west channel, there was no credible evidence that they currently frequent the area or that the construction and operation of the facility will impact adversely on them. Petitioner further expressed concern that, if not properly managed, the spoil disposal site might be a source of particulate matter (dust)--air pollution. However, JPA's Blount Island operation is not a complex air source, and the disposal site, if properly managed, will not be a source of particulate matter. JPA has agreed to properly manage the disposal site.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Petitioner and his wife own residential property on the northwest side of Key Thargo in Monroe County, Florida. The property is situated on Florida Bay, a Class III Outstanding Florida Water. The area surrounding the Depkins' property is predominately residential, but there is some nearby commercial development, including a motel which is located on an adjoining parcel. A seawall runs the entire length of the shoreline of the Depkins' property. An L-shaped dock and a covered dock extend out into the water from opposite ends of the seawall forming a cove. The Depkins, who live in Key Thargo only a portion of the year, have a boat which they currently moor alongside the L-shaped dock in that area of the cove where the depth of the water is the greatest. The operation of the boat in this area of the cove has not caused any obvious damage to the bay bottom. Two of the Depkins' boats have sunk in stormy weather while moored alongside the L-shaped dock. Therefore, they now dock their boat at a marina when they are away from Key Largo. The Depkins propose to dredge a relatively small 600 square foot area of bay bottom, which they own, in the cove immediately waterward of the seawall. The depth of the water in this area of the cove now ranges from six inches to a foot and a half. The proposed dredging project would increase the depth of the water by two feet and thereby enable the Depkins to dock their boat alongside the seawall, a location they consider safer than the one they presently use for this purpose. The bay bottom which the Depkins propose to dredge consists primarily of bedrock which is irregularly shaped. Most of the bedrock is exposed, however, some of the depressions in the bedrock are filled with sediment. The remaining portion of the bay bottom is covered with sand which is inhabited by various living organisms. Approximately 50% to 75% of the proposed dredging site is covered with vegetation. The dominant vegetation is live algae attached to the exposed bedrock. Various species of algae are present, including red algae, which is the preferred habitat for juvenile lobster. A small portion of the site is covered by live turtlegrass. These few patches of turtlegrass are found in the depressions in the bedrock that are filled with sediment. Without sediment turtlegrass cannot grow. Algae and turtlegrass play significant roles in the production and sustenance of marine life. They have considerable value as a habitat and as a source of food for other living organisms. In addition, they help reduce turbidity and water pollution. If the Depkins dredged the proposed project site, all existing biota within the boundaries of the site would be eliminated and it is unlikely that the area would experience a complete or significant recovery. About twelve to fourteen years ago the Depkins dredged sand from the bay bottom near their L-shaped dock. Almost 30 years ago the owners of the motel situated on the parcel of land adjoining the Depkins' property undertook a similar sand dredging project in the bay. Neither of these prior dredging projects resulted in the long-term loss of any vegetation. If anything, the vegetation in these areas has increased. Unlike these previous projects, the project which the Depkins now propose to undertake involves the dredging of primarily bedrock, not sand. 1/ Revegetation typically does not occur following such dredging activity. It is the exception rather than the rule. Therefore, more likely than not, the Depkins' proposed dredging project, if permitted, will result in the permanent loss of vegetation and consequently will have a long-term adverse effect on ambient water quality, the conservation of fish and other aquatic wildlife, and marine productivity. Furthermore, if the project was completed and the Depkins were to begin docking their boat alongside the seawall, there would be an increase in conflict turbidity attributable to the movement of the boat in and out of this area of shallow water. 2/ No measures to mitigate these adverse consequences have been proposed or suggested. 3/ There are many other owners of bayfront property in the Florida Keys who, like the Depkins, are desirous of dredging an access channel to the landward extent of their property. The Department's current practice is to deny these property owners permission to engage in such dredging activity. Although in the past year the Department has processed only about a half dozen permit applications for dredging projects similar in size and scope to that proposed by the Depkins, there would likely be a substantial increase in the number of permit applications were the Department to announce, through its disposition of the Depkins' permit application, that it was henceforth allowing such projects. If the Depkins and these other property owners were permitted to undertake such projects, the resulting damage to the marine environment would be widespread. The impact would extend far beyond the relatively small area of bay bottom that the Depkins propose to dredge. The Department has proposed the following reasonable alternative to the proposed dredging project which would also provide the Depkins with improved access to their residence by boat: Extend the existing [L-shaped] dock offshore to a terminal platform located at a water depth of at least four (4) feet MLW and elevate the intermediate portion of the dock to at least five (5) feet above MHW to prevent boat mooring in shallower areas.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a final order denying the Depkins' permit application. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of August, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division f Administrative Hearings this of 8th day of August, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioner, Champagne Estates (petitioner or applicant), is a limited partnership that owns a tract of land identified as Lots 1-5, Block 88, PGI Section 9A in Punta Gorda, Florida. The property fronts on the south side of the Peace River, a Class III water body which lies within the boundaries of the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve, a water body designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). Petitioner is in the process of constructing a thirty unit, two phase luxury condominium project on its property. As an added amenity for the unit owners, petitioner proposes to construct a multi-slip dock in a tear shaped basin that juts slightly inward from the Peace River. It is applicant's proposal to build a dock that has created this controversy. By application dated April 4, 1989, petitioner sought the issuance of a dredge and fill permit from respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). If approved, the permit would authorize the construction of the dock. The application was received by DER's Fort Myers district office on April 14, 1989, and was given a staff review for sufficiency. After additional information was requested by DER and filed by the applicant, an on-site inspection was conducted by DER personnel on June 2, 1990. An inspection report was thereafter prepared on July 14, 1990, and was used in the formulation of the agency's preliminary decision. That decision, which was styled as a notice of permit denial, was issued on July 25, 1989, and cited several grounds for DER's preliminary action. They included (a) a fear that degradation of waters would occur, (b) applicant's alleged failure to show that the project was not contrary to the public interest in six respects, and (c) a concern that the project and its cumulative impacts would be contrary to the public interest. The agency's notice of permit denial prompted the applicant to initiate this proceeding. The application and project area Applicant initially sought authorization to build a two hundred sixty- three foot dock with six finger piers, a terminal platform and thirteen boat slips. The agency's intent to deny permit was based on that proposal. After the proposed agency action was issued, petitioner modified its application to downsize the dock to one hundred feet with only four finger piers and eight mooring slips. The structure will have a "T" configuration. Under the modified proposal, the finger piers will have a length of twenty feet while the mooring slips are twelve feet wide. Applicant advises that the boats which will use the facility will average between twenty and twenty-six feet in length with drafts of two to three feet. This size and draft is comparable to commercial fishing boats which now frequent the deep water basin to catch mullet. If the application is approved, applicant proposes to place rock riprap at the toe of the existing vertical concrete seawall and to plant red mangroves in the intertidal areas. It also proposes to prohibit "live aboards", fueling and maintenance at the facility. Despite the above modifications and restrictions, DER advised petitioner on October 5, 1989, that the application was still unacceptable for the same reasons as originally given. The parties have agreed that the modified application is the subject of this proceeding. The basin in which the construction will occur was excavated in the 1960's. A thirteen foot deep east-west channel runs parallel to the shore several hundred feet from the shoreline. There are existing seawalls on both the southern and western shorelines of the project area which form an "L" at the intersection. The basin is tear shaped with a width of approximately one hundred feet and commences some one hundred feet waterward of the shoreline. The "T" finger pier structures will be at the southerly edge of the existing basin thereby giving vessels access to the east-west channel. During low tide the bottom of the water body is exposed for more than one hundred feet seaward of petitioner's property. Thus, most, if not all, of the dock will be over exposed areas during low tide, and even during high tide the water in the surrounding basin area will be no more than a few feet deep. The proposed project has existing condominiums on both sides. Virtually all of the remaining lots on either side of the project stretching a mile or so in both directions are developed with single or multifamily units. If approved, petitioner's dock would be the only such dock in the immediate area on the south side of the river. Water quality concerns An applicant for a dredge and fill permit is obliged to provide "reasonable assurance" that water quality standards will not be violated. Since the proposed project is within the boundaries of the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve, which is designated as an OFW, special water quality considerations come into play. More specifically, the project must maintain the ambient water quality standards of the OFW. This means that a permit cannot be issued for a project that will lower the ambient water quality, that is, the water quality existing one year prior to the date the body was designated an OFW, or the water quality existing one year prior to the project, whichever is better. One way in which ambient water quality can be degraded is by the resuspension of bottom solids caused by the churning of boat propellers. The likelihood of this condition occurring is made greater when insufficient water depths exist in combination with the existence of mucky, silty bottoms. The bottoms surrounding the proposed docking structure are nonvegetative and vary from hard sand in the shallow areas to a mucky silt layer in the deeper sections of the area. The accumulated sediment in the deeper section of the basin is on the order of twenty-four inches. While the hard sand bottom will readily settle out, the mucky bottom sediments will likely be churned by the boat activity in the absence of sufficient water depths. There is conflicting evidence regarding the depths of the water in the area of the basin where the proposed dock will be constructed. In support of its application, petitioner provided a chart indicating the topography of the sea bottoms at the proposed dock site. However, the geographic survey chart does not establish that sufficient water depth exists for the proposed dock. Rather, the more credible evidence establishes that the bottoms of the basin where the proposed dock will be built are often exposed and during low tides the sea bottoms are exposed up to approximately one hundred to one hundred fifty feet seaward of the seawall. Moreover, in the winter months, the westerly winds push the water out of the basin and cause the exposure of sea bottoms up to two hundred feet seaward of the seawall. When these shallow depths are coupled with the soupy texture of the bottom sediment, it is found that resuspension of the bottom sediment will occur as a result of boat activity at the proposed docking site. To the extent turbidity is now present in the basin due to the activities of the commercial fishermen, these turbidity levels will be exacerbated. If, as applicant suggests, the proposed facility will eliminate the commercial mullet fishing activities within the basin, there is no reasonable assurance that the new levels of turbidity will not exceed those now present. Therefore, it is found that applicant has not given reasonable assurance that the water quality standards will not be degraded. The agency's next concern involves its so-called "free-from" standard, which literally means that assurance must be given by the applicant that a water body will be "free from" various types of man-induced components (e. g., debris, oil, and scum) that float in such amounts as to form a nuisance. Thus, applicant was required to give reasonable assurance that the project would not cause an accumulation of debris and other items on the surface of the water in such amounts as to constitute a nuisance. The project site is "L" shaped, the "L" caused by the intersection of two seawalls on its western side. During the inspections of the project site by DER personnel, an accumulation of debris (grass clippings, styrofoam cups, coconuts, etc.) was observed in the corner of the "L". Indeed, applicant concedes that "some such debris is regularly present in the vicinity of the proposed docking structure" but contends that the docking facility will not cause significant additional floatsom or scum. However, it is found that due to the shape of the basin and its lack of sufficient water depth, the project will exacerbate the accumulation of debris so as to cause a nuisance. Finally, because of the shallow water in the basin, there exists the likelihood that dissolved oil or visible oil will form in the waters and affect its taste or give rise to an odor or otherwise affect the beneficial use of the waters. D. Public Interest Considerations In order for a permit to issue, and because the project is in an OFW, the applicant is obliged to show that the project "will be clearly in the public interest." The public interest test involves a consideration of seven statutory criteria. In this case, DER contends that six of the seven criteria enumerated in the law (s. 403.918(2)(a)1.-5. and 7., F.S.) have not been satisfied. The first criterion requires an inquiry as to whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare of the property of others. In this regard, it is noted that the proposed activity will take place in an OFW, a pristine water body. According to the agency, the maintenance of that water body "is in the welfare of all the citizens of the State of Florida, not just the residents of Champagne Estates or the adjacent condominium owners." Because the operation of boats will cause a degradation of the waters in the basin area, this will have an adverse effect on the public welfare. While applicant proposes to offer mitigation in the form of riprap and new mangroves, the success rates for mitigation proposals such as this are less than fifty per cent and do not offer sufficient assurance to counter the adverse effect on the public welfare. The second criterion concerns whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Uncontradicted testimony established that stingray, bait fish, sheepshead, minnows, brown pelican, osprey, bottlenosed dolphin, and loggerhead turtles habitat the project area. In addition, the proposed dock has been designated as a critical habitat for the manatee. Due to the resuspension of bottom solids caused by boat traffic in the shallow waters, the wildlife and fish in the area of the proposed dock will be adversely impacted. This is because elevated levels of turbidity are detrimental to aquatic species that breath water, especially for those that filter feed and pass the fluid through their bodies. The next relevant criterion is whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling (i. e., cause an area to shallow in). As to this criterion, applicant's uncontradicted evidence that the project will not affect navigation, the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling is accepted, and it is found that this criterion has been satisfied. The fourth criterion in issue is whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. While the fishing or recreational values should not be adversely affected, the turbidity caused by the boats propellors will impact the marine productivity in an adverse manner. Therefore, this criterion has not been met. The next criterion concerns whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature. The evidence shows that the project will be of a permanent nature, that is, once constructed, the applicant does not plan on tearing down the structure. However, neither party offered evidence as to how this consideration comes into play in the context of the public interest test, and it is accordingly found that applicant has not satisfied this requirement. The last disputed criterion concerns the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. By virtue of the increased turbidity levels, it is found that the relative value and use of the area will be degraded. E. Cumulative Impacts In its proposed agency action, the agency contended that "the project and its cumulative impacts . . . also fail to be clearly in the public interest." This objection is grounded on the statutory requirement that the agency consider the "other projects which may reasonably be expected to be located within the jurisdictional extent of waters, based upon land use restrictions and regulations." (s. 403.419(3), F.S.) According to an agency witness, applicant's project, if approved, would be the only docking facility on the south shoreline of the Peace River for some distance in either direction. Although DER does not have any pending applications for docks, and knows of none that will be filed, it "felt" there was a potential cumulative impact in that other condominium projects in the area would seek a docking permit once it became known that applicant had constructed such a facility. However, this "feeling" is insufficient to establish a finding that there is a potential adverse cumulative impact related to the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Champagne Estates for a dredge and fill permit be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner: 1-3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 4-8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 9-10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 11. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. 12-13. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 14. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 15. Rejected as being unnecessary. 16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 17. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 18-19. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Partially adopted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being unnecessary. 23-24. Partially adopted in finding of fact 15. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Partially adopted in finding of fact 13. Respondent: Partially adopted in finding of fact l. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 3-5. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 6-8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 9-14. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 15-41. Partially adopted in findings of fact 6-11. 42-53. Partially adopted in findings of fact 12-18. 54-56. Partially adopted in findings of fact 19-20. 57-62. Partially adopted in finding of fact 13. 63-64. Rejected as being unnecessary. Note - Where a finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, cumulative, contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Michael P. Haymans, Esquire P. O. Box 2159 Punta Gorda, Florida 33949 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The Respondent/Applicant, Jeffrey David Evans, applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit to construct a dock and boathouse as depicted on Respondent's Exhibit 1. The proposed length of the dock and boathouse is sixty feet from the seawall marking the landward boundary of the Halifax River and the waterward boundary of the Respondent/Applicant's property. The Department of Environmental Regulation advised Evans as well as the protesting Petitioner on March 9, 1981, of its intent to issue the permit. The Army Corps of Engineers issued a general permit numbered SAJ-20(MOD) on September 4, 1979, also authorizing construction of the proposed dock with the condition that it not extend in a waterward direction to a water depth contour deeper than four feet at mean low water. The Petitioner herein timely petitioned for a hearing protesting the decision by the DER to grant the permit. The parties do not dispute and indeed have stipulated that there will be no adverse impact on the conservation of fish and wildlife in the area and no significant chemical, biological or physical alteration of the state waters and marine or aquatic life involved. In short, it was stipulated that there are no adverse environmental impacts of any kind to be occasioned by construction of the project. Mr. James Morgan of the Department staff was qualified as an expert witness in aquatic ecology and the evaluation of dredge and fill projects. He testified at the hearing and established that the Respondent/Applicant had provided affirmative reasonable assurances to the Department that the proposed project would not result in any violations of state water quality standards and that the proposed project would not result in interference with the conservation of fish and wildlife in the subject area or the capability of the local aquatic habitat to support such fish and wildlife. Mr. Morgan also testified that reasonable assurances had been provided by the Respondent Applicant that the proposed project would not create a navigational hazard or a serious impediment to navigation, and that an unobstructed navigable channel would remain after the project was constructed. There being no question that affirmative reasonable assurances have been provided that no state water quality standards will be violated and that no other adverse environmental impacts will occur within the purview of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code; the permit in this regard should be granted. A question remains, however, regarding the maximum length the dock should achieve in a perpendicular direction from the seawall of the Respondent/Applicant's property out into the river. Evidence propounded by the Department regarding a six-foot water depth off the end of the proposed sixty- foot dock site is based upon hearsay information received from a Department employee other than the witness who testified, who in turn received it through a telephone conversation with, another party with no evidence that soundings or other types of survey were made. Mr. Evans' own testimony establishes that he measured some six and eight-foot depths in the natural channel involved herein, but his testimony is not specific enough in reflecting at what points in that channel, in relation to the site of the proposed dock, he measured those depths nor at what stage of the tide he measured them. It is established in the record that there is approximately a one-foot rise and fall between mean low water and mean high water at the subject site. The only access by navigation to the Petitioner's home from the main channel of the Intracoastal Waterway is by means of a natural channel running in a northerly direction parallel and immediately in front of the Petitioner's home and the applicant's home and inshore from a large sand bar covered with oysters which is a permanent oyster bar protruding from the water at low tide. The channel continues from the Petitioner's home northerly and parallel to the applicant's home and seawall until it reaches the northern terminus of the sand bar. From that point a boat navigating the channel can turn out into the main channel of the Intracoastal Waterway. Unrefuted evidence propounded by the Petitioner in the form of a "multi-sounding" depth survey established that the channel's depth at mean high tide ranges from four to five feet in front of the Respondent/Applicant's property (See Exhibit 13) The Petitioner established that access to the Intracoastal Waterway is only feasible through the subject channel running in front of the Respondent/Applicant's property. The Petitioner established that the channel begins with a depth of four feet at low tide or five feet at high tide as its landward boundary which lies fifty-two feet from the Respondent/Applicant's seawall. Thus, a dock extending the proposed sixty feet from the seawall would approach the middle of the subject historic channel and would constitute an impairment to navigation of that channel. In apparent recognition of the question of navigability of this historic channel, which was shown to have a depth of five feet at mean high tide, the Corps of Engineers has issued a permit to the Respondent/Applicant to construct his dock to a point no farther waterward than the four-foot mean low water depth contour of the river. This would allow the dock to extend to the boundary of the channel and would thus allow a dock to be constructed fifty-two feet in a perpendicular direction from the Respondents Applicant's seawall. The parties agree that four feet of water is required for navigability in and around the subject, historic channel. Thus, if the dock extended to the depth of four feet at low tide, which would be five feet at high tide, it would extend into the navigable channel and not allow a sufficiently safe distance waterward of the end of the dock for boats to turn around the end of the dock to negotiate the canal adjacent to the Petitioner's home, especially if Evans' boat is moored at the end of the dock. Accordingly the dock should only extend to that point, denominated on Exhibit 13, which is characterized by a depth at high tide of four feet and which lies six feet landward from the fifty-two-foot extent of dock which the Corps of Engineers' permit would allow. Thus, if the dock were to be built forty-six feet in a perpendicular direction from the seawall an additional six feet would be allowed for the mooring of the Respondent/Applicant's boat off the end of that dock without unduly obstructing navigation in the channel. It is noteworthy in this regard that no witness from the Corps of Engineers, or who was instrumental in the approval of the Corps of Engineers permit, testified at the hearing.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order granting the requested permit authorizing construction of a private dock and boathouse on the Halifax River in Port Orange, Volusia County, Florida, by Jeffrey David Evans, provided however, that said dock shall not extend a greater distance than forty-six feet in a direction perpendicular to the Respondent/Applicant's seawall on the waterward margin of his property on the Halifax River. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 29th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey C. Sweet, Esquire Post Office Box 5386 Daytona Beach, Florida 32018 Jeffrey David Evans Twelve Venetian Circle Port Orange, Florida 32019 Richard P. Lee, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC, are entitled to issuance of a permit by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD or District) for the modification of a surface-water management system to serve the 24.1-acre World Dressage Complex in Wellington, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Charles Jacobs and Kimberly Jacobs are the owners of a residence at 2730 Polo Island Drive, Unit A-104, Wellington, Florida. The residence is used by the Jacobs on an annual basis, generally between October and Easter, which corresponds to the equestrian show season in Florida. Petitioners maintain their permanent address in Massachusetts. The District is a public corporation, existing by virtue of chapter 25270, Laws of Florida 1949. The District is responsible for administering chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, within its geographic boundaries. The District’s statutory duties include the regulation and management of water resources, including water quality and water supply, and the issuance of environmental resource permits. The Applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC, are Florida limited-liability companies with business operations in Wellington, Florida. The Applicants are the owners of four parcels of property, parts of which comprise the complete 24.1- acre proposed Complex, and upon which the surface-water management facilities that are the subject of the Permit are to be constructed. Contiguous holdings of the four Applicants in the area consist of approximately 35 additional acres, primarily to the north and west of the Complex. Acme Improvement District The Acme Improvement District was created in the 1950s as a special drainage district. At the time of its creation, the Acme Improvement District encompassed 18,200 acres of land. As a result of additions over the years, the Acme Improvement District currently consists of approximately 20,000 acres of land that constitutes the Village of Wellington, and includes the Complex property. On March 16, 1978, the District issued a Surface Water Management Permit, No. 50-00548-S, for the Acme Improvement District (1978 Acme Permit) that authorized the construction and operation of a surface-water management system, and established design guidelines for subsequent work as development occurred in the Acme Improvement District. The total area covered by the 1978 Acme Permit was divided into basins, with the dividing line being, generally, Pierson Road. Basin A was designed so that its interconnected canals and drainage features would discharge to the north into the C-51 Canal, while Basin B was designed so that its interconnected canals and drainage features would discharge to the south into the C-40 Borrow Canal. Water management activities taking place within the boundaries of the Acme Improvement District are done through modifications to the 1978 Acme Permit. Over the years, there have been literally hundreds of modifications to that permit. The Property The Complex property is in Basin A of the Acme Improvement District, as is the property owned by Petitioners. Prior to January 1978, the property that is proposed for the Complex consisted of farm fields. At some time between January, 1978 and December 18, 1979, a very narrow body of water was dredged from abandoned farm fields to create what has been referred to in the course of this proceeding as “Moose Lake.” During that same period, Polo Island was created, and property to the east and west of Polo Island was filled and graded to create polo fields. Polo Island is surrounded by Moose Lake. When it was created, Polo Island was filled to a higher elevation than the adjacent polo fields to give the residents a view of the polo matches. Petitioners’ residence has a finished floor elevation of 18.38 feet NGVD, which is more than three-quarters of a foot above the 100-year flood elevation of 17.5 feet NGVD established for Basin A. The Complex and Petitioner’s residence both front on Moose Lake. There are no physical barriers that separate that part of the Moose Lake fronting Petitioners’ residence from that part of Moose Lake into which the Complex’s surface-water management system is designed to discharge. Moose Lake discharges into canals that are part of the C-51 Basin drainage system. Discharges occur through an outfall at the south end of Moose Lake that directs water into the C-23 canal, and through an outfall at the east end of Moose Lake that directs water into the C-6 canal. There are no wetlands or surface water bodies located on the Complex property. 2005-2007 Basin Study and 2007 Acme Permit Material changes in the Acme Drainage District since 1978 affected the assumptions upon which the 1978 ACME Permit was issued. The material changes that occurred over the years formed the rationale for a series of detailed basin studies performed from 2005 through 2007. The basin studies, undertaken by the District and the Village of Wellington, analyzed and modeled the areas encompassed by the 1978 Acme Permit in light of existing improvements within the Acme Improvement District. The changes to Basin A and Basin B land uses identified by the basin studies became the new baseline conditions upon which the District and the Village of Wellington established criteria for developing and redeveloping property in the Wellington area, and resulted in the development of updated information and assumptions to be used in the ERP program. On November 15, 2007, as a result of the basin studies, the District accepted the new criteria and issued a modification of the standards established by the 1978 Acme Permit (2007 Acme Permit). For purposes relevant to this proceeding, the 2007 Acme Permit approved the implementation of the new Permit Criteria and Best Management Practices Manual for Works in the Village of Wellington.1/ The language of the 2007 Acme Permit is somewhat ambiguous, and portions could be read in isolation to apply only to land in Basin B of the Acme Improvement District. Mr. Waterhouse testified that the language of the permit tended to focus on Basin B because it contained significant tracts of undeveloped property, the land in Basin A having been essentially built-out. However, he stated that it was the District’s intent that the Permit Criteria and Best Management Practices Manual for Works in the Village of Wellington adopted by the 2007 Acme Permit was to apply to all development and redevelopment in the Acme Improvement District, and that the District had applied the permit in that manner since its issuance. Mr. Waterhouse’s testimony was credible, reflects the District’s intent and application of the permit, and is accepted. The Proposed Complex The Complex is proposed for construction on the two polo fields to the west of Polo Island, and properties immediately adjacent and contiguous thereto.2/ The Complex is designed to consist of a large covered arena; several open-air equestrian arenas; four 96-stall stables, with associated covered manure bins and covered horse washing facilities, located between the stables; an event tent; a raised concrete vendor deck for spectators, exhibitors, and vendors that encircles three or four of the rings; and various paved access roads, parking areas, and support structures. Of the 96 stalls per stable, twenty percent would reasonably be used for storing tack, feed, and similar items. The surface-water management system that is the subject of the application consists of inlets and catch basins, underground drainage structures, dry detention areas, swales for conveying overland flows, and exfiltration trenches for treatment of water prior to its discharge at three outfall points to Moose Lake. The horse-washing facilities are designed to tie into the Village of Wellington’s sanitary sewer system, by-passing the surface water management system. The Permit Application On May 18, 2011, two of the Applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC, and Polo Field One, LLC, applied for a modification to the 1978 Acme Improvement District permit to construct a surface-water management system to serve the proposed Complex. At the time of the initial application, the proposed Complex encompassed 20 acres. There were no permitted surface water management facilities within its boundaries. The Complex application included, along with structural elements, the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for handling manure, horse-wash water, and other equestrian waste on the property. Properties adjacent to the Complex, and under common ownership of one or more of the Applicants, have been routinely used for equestrian events, including temporary support activities for events on the Complex property. For example, properties to the north of the Complex owned by Far Niente Stables II, LLC, and Polo Field One, LLC, have been used for show-jumping events, derby events, and grand prix competitions, as well as parking and warm-up areas for derby events and for dressage events at the Complex. Except for an earthen mound associated with the derby and grand prix field north of the Complex, there has been no development on those adjacent properties, and no requirement for a stormwater management system to serve those properties. Thus, the adjacent properties are not encompassed by the Application. Permit Issuance On November 22, 2011, Permit No. 50-00548-S-203 was issued by the District to Far Niente Stables II, LLC. Polo Field One, LLC, though an applicant, was not identified as a permittee. On January 13, 2012, the District issued a “Correction to Permit No. 50-00548-S-203.” The only change to the Permit issued on November 22, 2011, was the addition of Polo Field One, LLC, as a permittee. On January 25, 2012, the Applicants submitted a request for a letter modification of the Permit to authorize construction of a 1,190-linear foot landscape berm along the eastern property boundary. On February 16, 2012, the District acknowledged the application for the berm modification, and requested additional information regarding an access road and cul-de-sac on the west side of the Complex that extended into property owned by others. On that same date, the Applicants provided additional information, including evidence of ownership, that added Stadium North, LLC and Stadium South, LLC, as permittees. On March 26, 2012, the District issued the proposed modification to Permit No. 50-00548-S-203. On November 15, 2012, the Applicants’ engineer prepared a revised set of plans that added 2.85 acres of property to the Complex. The property, referred to as Basin 5, provided an additional dry detention stormwater storage area. On or shortly after December 3, 2012, the Applicants submitted a final Addendum to Surface Water Management Calculations that accounted for the addition of Basin 5 and other changes to the Permit application that increased the size of the Complex from 20 acres to 24.1 acres. On December 18, 2012, the Applicants submitted final revisions to the BMPs in an Updated BMP Plan. On January 7, 2013, the District issued the final proposed modification to the permit. The modification consisted of the addition of Basin 5, the deletion of a provision of special condition 14 that conflicted with elements of the staff report, the Updated BMP Plan, the recognition of an enforcement proceeding for unauthorized construction of the linear berm and other unauthorized works, and changes to the Permit to conform with additional information submitted by the Applicants. The final permitted surface-water management system consists of inlets and catch basins, underground drainage structures, a 0.64-acre dry detention area, swales for conveying overland flows, and 959-linear feet of exfiltration trench. For purposes of this proceeding, the “Permit” that constitutes the proposed agency action consists of the initial November 22, 2011, Permit; the January 13, 2012, Correction; the March 26, 2012, letter modification; and the January 7, 2013 modification. Post-Permit Activities at the Complex Work began on the Complex on or about November 28, 2011. Work continued until stopped on April 18, 2012, pursuant to a District issued Consent Order and Cease and Desist. As of the date of the final hearing, the majority of the work had been completed. In late August, 2012, the Wellington area was affected by rains associated with Tropical Storm Isaac that exceeded the rainfall totals of a 100-year storm event. Water ponded in places in the Polo Island subdivision. That ponded water was the result of water falling directly on Polo Island, and may have been exacerbated by blockages of Polo Island drainage structures designed to discharge water from Polo Island to Moose Lake. No residences were flooded as a result of the Tropical Storm Isaac rain event. The only flooding issue related to water elevations in Moose Lake was water overflowing the entrance road, which is at a lower elevation. The road remained passable. Road flooding is generally contemplated in the design of stormwater management systems and does not suggest a failure of the applicable system. Permitting Standards Standards applicable to the Permit are contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)-(k), and in the District’s Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (BOR), which has been adopted by reference in rule 40E-4.091(1)(a). The parties stipulated that the standards in rules 40E-4.301(1)(d),(g) and (h) are not at issue in this proceeding. Permitting Standards - Water Quantity Those provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that pertain to water quantity, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; Will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property; Will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. In addition to the preceding rules, section 6.6 of the BOR, entitled “Flood Plain Encroachment,” provides that “[n]o net encroachment into the floodplain, between the average wet season water table and that encompassed by the 100-year event, which will adversely affect the existing rights of others, will be allowed.” Section 6.7 of the BOR, entitled “Historic Basin Storage,” provides that “[p]rovision must be made to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided by the project site.” The purpose of a pre-development versus post- development analysis is to ensure that, after development of a parcel of property, the property is capable of holding a volume of stormwater on-site that is the same or greater than that held in its pre-development condition. On-site storage includes surface storage and soil storage. Surface Storage Surface storage is calculated by determining the quantity of water stored on the surface of the site. Mr. Hall found no material errors in the Applicants’ calculations regarding surface storage. His concern was that the permitted surface storage, including the dry detention area added to the plans in December 2012, would not provide compensating water storage to account for the deficiencies he found in the soil storage calculations discussed herein. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants’ surface storage calculations are found to accurately assess the volume of stormwater that can be stored on the property without discharge to Moose Lake. Soil Storage Soil storage is water that is held between soil particles. Soil storage calculations take into consideration the soil type(s) and site-specific soil characteristics, including compaction. Soils on the Complex property consist of depressional soils. Such soils are less capable of storage than are sandier coastal soils. When compacted, the storage capacity of depressional soils is further reduced. The Applicants’ calculations indicated post- development storage on the Complex property to be 25.04 acre/feet. Mr. Hall’s post-development storage calculation of 25.03 acre/feet was substantively identical.3/ Thus, the evidence demonstrates the accuracy of Applicants’ post- development stormwater storage calculations. The Applicants’ calculations showed pre-development combined surface and soil storage capacity on the Property of 24.84 acre/feet. Mr. Hall calculated pre-development combined surface and soil storage, based upon presumed property conditions existing on March 16, 1978, of 35.12 acre/feet. Based on the foregoing, Mr. Hall concluded that the post-development storage capacity of the Complex had a deficit of 10.09 acre/feet of water as compared to the pre-development storage capacity of the Property, which he attributed to a deficiency in soil storage. The gist of Mr. Hall’s disagreement centered on the Applicants’ failure to consider the Complex’s pre-development condition as being farm fields, as they were at the time of issuance of the 1978 Acme Permit, and on the Applicants’ application of the 25-percent compaction rate for soils on the former polo fields. As applied to this case, the pre-development condition of the Complex as polo fields was a reasonable assumption for calculating soil storage, rather than the farm fields that existed in January 1978, and is consistent with the existing land uses identified in the 2005-2007 basin studies and 2007 Acme Permit. Given the use of the Complex property as polo fields, with the attendant filling, grading, rolling, mowing, horse traffic, parking, and other activities that occurred on the property over the years, the conclusion that the soils on the polo fields were compacted, and the application of the 25- percent compaction rate, was a reasonable assumption for calculating soil storage. Applying the Applicants’ assumptions regarding existing land uses for the Complex property, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that the proposed surface water management system will provide a total of 25.04-acre feet of combined soil and surface storage compared to pre-development soil and surface storage of 24.84-acre feet. Thus, the proposed Project will result in an increase of soil and surface storage over pre-development conditions, and will not cause or contribute to flooding or other issues related to water quantity.4/ Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the proposed surface-water management system will meet standards regarding water quantity established in rule 40E-4.301(1)(a), (b), and (c), and sections 6.6 and 6.7 of the BOR. Permitting Standards - Water Quality Those provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that pertain to water quality, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards . . . will be violated; Will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. Section 373.4142, entitled “[w]ater quality within stormwater treatment systems,” provides, in pertinent part, that: State surface water quality standards applicable to waters of the state . . . shall not apply within a stormwater management system which is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained for stormwater treatment Such inapplicability of state water quality standards shall be limited to that part of the stormwater management system located upstream of a manmade water control structure permitted, or approved under a noticed exemption, to retain or detain stormwater runoff in order to provide treatment of the stormwater . . . . Moose Lake is a component of a stormwater-management system that is located upstream of a manmade water control structure. The Permit application did not include a water quality monitoring plan, nor did the Permit require the Applicants to report on the water quality of Moose Lake. During October and November, 2012, Petitioners performed water quality sampling in Moose Lake in accordance with procedures that were sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of the results. The sampling showed phosphorus levels in Moose Lake of greater than 50 parts per billion (ppb).5/ That figure, though not a numeric standard applicable to surface waters, was determined to be significant by Petitioners because phosphorus may not exceed 50 ppb at the point at which the C-51 Canal discharges from the Acme Improvement District into the Everglades system. Notwithstanding the levels of phosphorus in Moose Lake, Mr. Swakon admitted that “the calculations that are in the application for water quality treatment are, in fact, met. They’ve satisfied the criteria that are in the book.” In response to the question of whether “[t]he water quality requirements in the Basis of Review . . . the half inch or one inch of runoff, the dry versus wet detention . . . complied with those water quality requirements,” he further testified “[i]t did.” Mr. Swakon expressed his belief that, despite Applicants’ compliance with the standards established for water quality treatment, a stricter standard should apply because the pollutant-loading potential of the Complex, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen from animal waste, is significantly different than a standard project, e.g., a parking lot. No authority for requiring such additional non-rule standards was provided. The evidence demonstrates that the Applicants provided reasonable assurances that all applicable stormwater management system standards that pertain to water treatment and water quality were met. Permitting Standards - Design Features and BMPs Provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that constitute more general concerns regarding the design of the Complex, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed. Petitioners alleged that certain deficiencies in the Complex design and BMPs compromise the ability of the stormwater management system to be operated and function as proposed. Design Features Petitioners expressed concern that the manure bin, though roofed, had walls that did not extend to the roofline, thus allowing rain to enter. Photographs received in evidence suggest that the walls extend to a height of approximately six feet, with an opening of approximately two feet to the roof line. The plan detail sheet shows a roof overhang, though it was not scaled. Regardless, the slab is graded to the center so that it will collect any water that does enter through the openings. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the manure bins are sufficient to prevent uncontrolled releases of animal waste to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Petitioners suggested that the horse-washing facilities, which discharge to a sanitary sewer system rather than to the stormwater management facility, are inadequate for the number of horses expected to use the wash facilities. Petitioners opined that the inadequacy of the wash facilities would lead to washing being done outside of the facilities, and to the resulting waste and wash water entering the stormwater management system. Petitioners provided no basis for the supposition other than speculation. Mr. Stone testified that the horse-washing facilities are adequate to handle the horses boarded at the stables and those horses that would reasonably be expected to use the facility during events. His testimony in that regard was credible and is accepted. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the horse-washing facilities are adequate to prevent the release of wash water to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Petitioners expressed further concerns that horse washing outside of the horse-washing facilities would be facilitated due to the location of hose bibs along the exterior stable walls. However, Mr. Swakon testified that those concerns would be minimized if the hose bibs could be disabled to prevent the attachment of hoses. The December 2012 Updated BMP Plan requires such disabling, and Mr. Stone testified that the threads have been removed. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the presence of hose bibs on the exterior stable walls will not result in conditions that would allow for the release of wash water to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Best Management Practices The Updated BMP Plan for the Complex includes practices that are more advanced than the minimum requirements of the Village of Wellington, and more stringent than BMPs approved for other equestrian facilities in Wellington. Petitioners identified several issues related to the Updated BMP Plan that allegedly compromised the ability of the Complex to meet and maintain standards. Those issues included: the lack of a requirement that the Applicant provide the District with a copy of the contract with a Village of Wellington-approved manure hauler; the failure to require that BMP Officers be independent of the Applicants; the failure to require that the names and telephone numbers of the BMP Officers be listed in the permit; and the failure of the District to require that violations by tenants be reported to the District, rather than being maintained on-site as required. Mr. Stone testified that the BMP conditions included in the Updated BMP Plan were sufficient to assure compliance. His testimony is credited. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the terms and conditions of the Updated BMP Plan are capable of being implemented and enforced. Permitting Standards - Applicant Capabilities Provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that are based on the capabilities of the Applicants to implement the Permit, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will be conducted by an entity with the sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued. As the owners of the Complex property, the Applicants have the legal authority to ensure that their tenants, licensees, invitees, and agents exercise their rights to the property in a manner that does not violate applicable laws, rules, and conditions. Regarding the financial capability of the Applicants to ensure the successful and compliant operation of the Complex, Mr. Stone testified that the entity that owns the Applicants, Wellington Equestrian Partners, has considerable financial resources backing the Complex venture. Furthermore, the Applicants own the property on and adjacent to the Complex which is itself valuable. As to the administrative capabilities of the Applicants to ensure that the activities on the site will comply with relevant standards, Mr. Stone testified that an experienced and financially responsible related entity, Equestrian Sport Productions, by agreement with the Applicants, is charged with organizing and operating events at the Complex, and that the Applicants’ BMP Officers have sufficient authority to monitor activities and ensure compliance with the BMPs by tenants and invitees. Mr. Stone’s testimony that the Applicants have the financial and administrative capability to ensure that events and other operations will be conducted in a manner to ensure that the stormwater management system conditions, including BMPs, will be performed was persuasive and is accepted. The fact that the Applicants are financially and administratively backed by related parent and sibling entities does not diminish the reasonable assurances provided by the Applicants that the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Complex will be undertaken in accordance with the Permit. Petitioners assert that many of the events to be held at the Complex are sanctioned by international equestrian organizations, and that their event rules and requirements -- which include restrictions on the ability to remove competition teams from the grounds -- limit the Applicants’ ability to enforce the BMPs. Thus, the Petitioners suggest that reasonable assurances cannot be provided as a result of the restrictions imposed by those sanctioning bodies. The international event rules applicable to horses and riders are not so limiting as to diminish the reasonable assurances that have been provided by the Applicants. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that construction and operation of the stormwater management system will be conducted by entities with sufficient financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. As a related matter, Petitioners assert the Applicants failed to disclose all of their contiguous land holdings, thus making it impossible for the District to calculate the actual impact of the Complex. Although the application was, for a number of items, an evolving document, the evidence demonstrates that the Applicants advised the District of their complete 59+- acre holdings, and that the Permit was based on a complete disclosure. The circumstances of the disclosure of the Applicant’s property interests in the area adjacent to the Complex was not a violation of applicable standards, and is not a basis for denial of the Complex permit. Permitting Standards - C-51 Basin Rule The final provision of rule 40E-4.301 that is at issue in this proceeding is as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41, F.A.C. Mr. Hall testified the Complex violated permitting standards partly because it failed to comply with the C-51 Basin rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-041, Part III, pertaining to on-site compensation for reductions in soil storage volume. Mr. Waterhouse testified that the C-51 Basin rule does not apply to the lands encompassed by the Acme Improvement District permits, including the Complex property. The C-51 Basin rule was promulgated in 1987, after the issuance of the original Acme Improvement District permit. The District does not apply new regulatory standards to properties that are the subject of a valid permit or its modifications. Therefore, the area encompassed by the 1978 Acme Permit, and activities permitted in that area as a modification to the 1978 Acme Permit, are not subject to the C-51 rule. The Joint Prehearing Stipulation provides that “Chapter 373, Fla. Stat., Chapter 40E-4, Fla. Admin. Code, and the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District (July 4, 2010) are the applicable substantive provisions at issue in this proceeding.” The Stipulation did not identify chapter 40E-41 as being applicable in this proceeding. Given the testimony of Mr. Waterhouse, which correctly applies standards regarding the application of subsequently promulgated rules to existing permits, and the stipulation of the parties, the C-51 Basin rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40-E-041, Part III, does not apply to the permit that is the subject of this proceeding. Therefore, the stormwater management system does not violate rule 40E-4.301(1)(k). Consideration of Violations Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(2), provides, in pertinent part, that: When determining whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met, the District shall take into consideration a permit applicant’s violation of any . . . District rules adopted pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S., relating to any other project or activity and efforts taken by the applicant to resolve these violations. . . . Petitioners have identified several violations of District rules on or adjacent to the Complex property during the course of construction, and violations of District rules associated with the Palm Beach International Equestrian Center (PBIEC), the owner of which shares common managers and officers with the Applicants, for consideration in determining whether reasonable assurances have been provided. Violations on or Adjacent to the Complex On March 22, 2012, the District performed an inspection of the Complex property. The inspection revealed that the Applicants had constructed the linear berm along the eastern side of the Property that was the subject of the January 25, 2012, application for modification of the Permit. The construction was performed before a permit modification was issued, and was therefore unauthorized. A Notice of Violation was issued to Far Niente Stables II, LLC, on March 22, 2012, that instructed Far Niente Stables II, LLC, to cease all work on the Complex. Several draft consent orders were provided to Far Niente Stables II, LLC, each of which instructed Far Niente Stables II, LLC, to cease and desist from further construction. Construction was not stopped until April 18, 2012. The matter was settled through the entry of a Consent Order on May 10, 2012 that called for payment of costs and civil penalties. The berm was authorized as part of the March 26, 2012 Complex permit modification. All compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District During inspections of the Complex by the parties to this proceeding, it was discovered that yard drains had been constructed between the stables and connected to the stormwater management system, and that a bathroom/utility room had been constructed at the north end of the horse-washing facility. The structures were not depicted in any plans submitted to the District, and were not authorized by the Permit. The yard drains had the potential to allow for animal waste to enter Moose Lake. The Applicants, under instruction from the District, have capped the yard drains. No other official compliance action has been taken by the District. A permit condition to ensure that the yard drains remain capped is appropriate and warranted. At some time during or before 2010, a mound of fill material was placed on the derby and grand prix field to the north of the Complex to be used as an event obstacle. Although there was a suggestion that a permit should have been obtained prior to the fill being placed, the District has taken no enforcement action regarding the earthen mound. Petitioners noted that the Complex is being operated, despite the fact that no notice of completion has been provided, and no conversion from the construction phase to the operation phase has been performed as required by General Condition Nos. 6 and 7 of the Complex permit. Such operations constitute a violation of the permit and, as such, a violation of District rules. However, the District has taken no official action to prohibit or restrict the operation of the Complex pending completion and certification of the permitted work and conversion of the permit to its operation phase. The construction of the berm, yard drains, and bathroom/utility room, and the operation of the Complex, causes concern regarding the willingness of the Applicants to work within the regulatory parameters designed to ensure protection of Florida’s resources. However, given the scope of the Complex as a whole, and given that the violations were resolved to the satisfaction of the District, the violations, though considered, do not demonstrate a lack of reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met. Violations related to the PBIEC At some time prior to February 13, 2008, one or more entities affiliated with Mark Bellissimo assumed control and operation of the PBIEC. When the facility was acquired, the show grounds were in poor condition, there were regulatory violations, it had no BMPs of consequence, there were no covered horse-wash racks, and the wash water was not discharged to a sanitary sewer system. After its acquisition by entities associated with Mr. Bellissimo, the PBIEC was substantially redesigned and rebuilt, and BMPs that met or exceeded the requirements of the Village of Wellington were implemented. The PBIEC currently has 12 arenas that include facilities for show jumping events, and nine horse-wash racks. The PBIEC has the capacity to handle approximately 1,700 horses. On March 14, 2008, the District issued a Notice of Violation to Far Niente Stables V, LLC, related to filling and grading of an existing stormwater management system and lake system at the PBIEC; the failure to maintain erosion and turbidity controls to prevent water quality violations in adjacent waters; the failure to maintain manure and equestrian waste BMPs; and the failure to transfer the PBIEC stormwater management permit to the current owner. On October 9, 2008, Far Niente Stables V, LLC, and the District entered into a Consent Order that resolved the violations at the PBIEC, required that improvements be made, required the implementation of advanced BMPs, and required payment of costs and civil penalties. On January 12, 2011, a notice was issued that identified deficiencies in the engineer’s construction completion certification for the stormwater management system improvements, horse-wash facility connections, and other activities on the PBIEC. Although completion of all items required by the Consent Order took longer -- in some instances significantly longer -- than the time frames set forth in the Consent Order,6/ all compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District. On January 7, 2011, the District issued a Notice of Violation and short-form Consent Order to Far Niente Stables, LLC, which set forth violations that related to the failure to obtain an environmental resource permit related to “Tract D and Equestrian Club Drive Realignment.” The short-form Consent Order was signed by Far Niente Stables, LLC, and the compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District. Based on the foregoing, the violations at the PBIEC, though considered, do not demonstrate a lack of reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met for the Complex Permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order: Incorporating the June 29, 2012, Order of Standing and Timeliness; Approving the issuance of Surface Water Management System Permit No. 50-00548-S-203 to Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC.; and Imposing, as an additional condition, a requirement that the unpermitted yard drains constructed between the stables be permanently capped, and the area graded, to prevent the unauthorized introduction of equine waste from the area to the stormwater management system. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 2013.
Findings Of Fact On March 30, 1981, the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, received a request from William H. Griffith to allow him to place "rip-rap" adjacent to a retaining wall which fronts Griffith's property. Griffith is a resident at 259 Sabine Drive, Pensacola Beach, Florida. This residence address is in Escambia County, Florida. The details of the application for permit are as set forth in Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 3, admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the application. The application as originally constituted requested that Griffith be allowed to place "rip-rap" material along the front of his property adjacent to the retaining wall which wall was approximately 140 feet in length. The depth of the "rip-rap" material was to be 30 feet with an approximate height of the material being 3 feet. The "rip-rap" material was to be constituted of concrete test block cylinders which are 6 to 8 inches in diameter by 12 to 14 inches in length, together with other aggregate material constituted of irregularly shaped chunks of concrete. Those materials are depicted in the Petitioner's Exhibit 1A through H which are photographs taken at the site of the proposed project. Subsequent to the submission of the application for permit, a modification was made which reduced the depth of the "rip-rap" material from 39 feet to 10 feet 6 inches. This modification occurred sometime in May, 1981, and is depicted in the Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 3. The proposed project, in its modified form, would involve navigable waters of the State. Specifically, it would involve Class II waters, namely the intercoastal waterway which is fronted by the Respondent Griffith's property. A sketch of this location in Escambia County is depicted in the item entitled "vicinity map" which is part of Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 3. The purpose of the "rip-rap" as it is presently contemplated through the project would be to prohibit tidal erosion of the Respondent Griffith's property, in the area of his beach front, particularly as it is exacerbated by seasonal winds. A permit application appraisal was made by the Department and was concluded on July 27, 1981. A copy of that appraisal may be found as the Respondent Department's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence. Through the process of the permit review and appraisal, the Department requested that the applicant remove four "rip-rap" groins running perpendicular to the retaining wall, which were 20 to 30 feet long. Those groins were not acceptable to the Department as devices to prohibit erosion. Respondent Griffith has removed the majority of the fill material and the present design contemplates the total removal of those groins. At the time of the permit review and at present the existing retaining wall is located 8 to 10 feet landward of the approximate mean high water shoreline. If constructed the 10 foot 6 inch depth "rip-rap" fill structure would extend approximately 2 feet waterward of the approximate mean high water shoreline. A description of the flora and fauna located at the project site, together with general description of the soil types may be found in Respondent Department's Exhibit 1. The impact of the project as described in the permit application appraisal, Respondent Department's Exhibit 1, indicates that the placement of "rip-rap" would stabilize the eroding shoreline adjacent to the applicant's property; provide moderate amounts of substrate to act as a habitat and shelter for intertidal organisms; would act as a limited inhibitor to littoral sand transport, particularly as related to Petitioner Gibson's property, in that there will be some deprivation of sand transport onto the Gibson property until the "rip-rap" stabilizes; however, this deprivation of sand transport of the Gibson property is not substantial. The impact on the Gibson property is further described in the appraisal statement as being insignificant. (It is also suggested that Gibson utilize "rip-rap" as opposed to the vertical timber retaining wall which is in place at his property and is subject to being undermined by tidal pressures.) These perceptions as set forth in the Department's permit application appraisal are factually correct. Having conducted the permit review and being of the opinion that the permit should be issued, the Department sent a letter of intent to issue the permit on July 29, 1981, and served Petitioner Gibson with a copy. The permit document was also forwarded to the applicant. The letter of intent and permit document may be found in Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 5, which was admitted into evidence. This exhibit is a copy of the aforementioned items. Subsequent to the notification of the intent to grant, Petitioner Gibson requested a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, which Petition, in its final form, may be found as Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 2, admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the verified Petition of the Petitioner. The hearing was then noticed and conducted on November 10, 1981, pursuant to the hearing notice, a copy of which may be found as Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence. The project as contemplated will not have a significant negative impact on the flora and fauna. To the extent that there is some destruction by the placement of the "rip-rap" material, this destruction is more than offset by the provision of habitat and shelter for intertidal organisms. The placement of the "rip-rap" will not have a negative impact on water quality in the waters of the State which are adjacent to the Respondent Griffith's property and in which the "rip-rap" will be implaced to the extent of approximately 2 feet waterward of the approximate mean high water shoreline. Should the "rip-rap" material not be placed, shoreline erosion will continue in the area of the applicant's property and that of the Petitioner. The placement of the "rip-rap" is not a hazard to navigation nor in conflict with the public interest. The applicant has received necessary approval from the Army Corps of Engineers for the installation of the "rip-rap" material as may be seen by the grant of a permit from the Corps, a copy of which is found as Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 4, admitted into evidence.
