The Issue Whether Respondent Richardson’s application for a wetlands resource permit to construct a private road and bridge through wetlands should be denied for failing to provide mitigation to offset the impacts to existing wetlands. Whether Respondent Richardson had provided the Department with reasonable assurance that he or she owns or has sufficient authorization to use certain land in mitigation to offset the wetland impacts.
Findings Of Fact In January of 1990, John Richardson applied to the Department for a wetland resource (dredge and fill) permit under Section 403.918, Florida Statutes to construct a private road and bridge through wetlands. The proposed project would impact 0.032 acres of wetland. The proposed project is not located in an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The proposed project would adversely affect the following: the conservation of fish and wildlife; the fishing, recreational values, and marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed project; and the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the wetlands impacted by the project. The proposed project would be permanent in nature. The proposed project would not meet the criteria of Section 403.918(2)(a) Florida Statutes, without mitigation adequate to offset the impacts to wetlands. To provide adequate mitigation for the proposed project, Respondent John Richardson proposed to create and preserve 0.029 acres of new wetlands and preserve 4.35 acres of existing wetlands. The preservation would consist of granting to the Department a perpetual conservation easement over the mitigation wetlands. Respondent John Richardson represented to the Department that he was the record owner or had permission to use the land that he offered for mitigation. The Department reasonably relied on that representation. The mitigation proposed by Respondent John Richardson would be adequate to offset the impacts to wetlands resulting from the proposed project. On March 4, 1992, the Department issued to John Richardson a wetlands resource permit for the proposed project. The Department was not aware, before it issued this permit, that John Richardson might not own or have permission to use the mitigation land. The Department was substantially justified in issuing the permit to John Richardson on March 4, 1992. Specific conditions 28-31 of that permit required Respondent John Richardson to grant the Department a conservation easement over the mitigation land within thirty days after issuance of the permit. Respondent John Richardson failed to grant the Department the required conservation easement, and failed to publish notice of the Department’s action. On July 22, 1996, Petitioners filed a timely petition with the Department challenging the Department’s issuance of the March 4, 1992, permit to Respondent John Richardson. On September 11, 1996, Janet Richardson filed an application with the Department for transfer of the March 4, 1992, permit to her following the dissolution of marriage with John Richardson. By letter dated October 11, 1996, the Department requested Janet Richardson to provide additional documentation to show that she either owns the mitigation land or has permission to use that land. Janet Richardson was required to provide a legal survey drawing depicting the mitigation land, property records showing ownership of that land, and a notarized statement from the land owner authorizing her to use that land. The Department specifically advised Janet Richardson that it could not approve the proposed project if she failed to submit this requested documentation to the Department prior to the final hearing. Janet Richardson failed to provide the requested documentation by the date of the final hearing in this matter, or subsequently. As of November 6, 1996, no work had begun on the proposed project. At the hearing, the Department adequately explained its change in position from deciding to issue the permit (on March 4, 1992) and proposing denial of the permit (on November 6, 1996). The Department relies on an applicant’s representations regarding ownership of or right to use land unless a problem is brought to the Department’s attention. In this case, the Department was not aware that there was a problem with the applicant’s right to use the mitigation land until the petition was filed with the Department on July 22, 1996. Janet Richardson failed to provide proof that she either owns or is authorized to use the land to mitigate the impacts to wetlands from the proposed project. Without such proof, Janet Richardson failed to prove that she could mitigate those same impacts from the proposed project.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying Respondent Richardson’s request for a wetlands resource permit for the proposed project.ONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Stauffer Post Office Box 97 Aripeka, Florida 34679-097 Cy Plata Post Office Box 64 Aripeka, Florida 34679 Steven McCallum Post Office Box 484 Aripeka, Florida 34679 Leslie Neumann Post Office Box 738 Aripeka, Florida 34679 John Richardson 700 West Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34607 Janet Richardson 1603 Osowaw Boulevard Springhill, Florida 34607 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr., Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virgina B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue is whether the Department should issue Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization No. 43-0197751-003 to Reily.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department is the agency that approved the permit at issue in this proceeding. The Department is responsible for protecting the water resources of the state in conjunction with the water management districts, and it is also responsible for authorizing the use of sovereignty submerged lands pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The activities authorized by the permit are as follows: The purpose of the project is to install a 395 linear foot upland retaining wall, with one 10 linear foot return, located at least 5-feet landward of the Mean High Water Line, and an 85 linear foot seawall, with one 10 linear foot return, located at the Mean High Water Line. Riprap shall be installed at a 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) slope along the 85 linear foot seawall, and will extend out a maximum of 4-feet waterward of the toe of the new seawall. [3] Reily is the applicant for the permit. Reily owns approximately 17.74 acres of property along Indian River Drive in Jensen Beach, just north of the Jensen Beach Causeway. The Reily property extends from the Indian River on the east to Skyline Drive on the west. Indian River Drive runs north and south through the east side of the property. The Reily property to the east of Indian River Drive is undeveloped except for an existing restaurant, Dena’s, which is on the southern end of the property. There is an existing “RV park” on the Reily property to the west of Indian River Drive. The project will be located to the east of Indian River Drive. That portion of the Reily property is approximately one acre in size, and is only 149 feet wide at its widest point. The property is 24 feet wide at its narrowest point, and more than half of the property is less than 68 feet wide. Petitioners live in single-family homes to the west of the Reily property. Each of their homes is within 300 feet of the Reily property to the west of Indian River Drive, but more than a quarter of a mile from the property on which the permitted activities will be located. Petitioner Anthony Parkinson sometimes drives by the property where the permitted activities will be located when he takes his daughter to school; he has had breakfast at Dena’s several times; he looks at the property from the causeway; and, on at least one occasion, he and his daughter looked at vegetation in the water adjacent to the Reily property for a school project. Mr. Parkinson testified that the project will negatively affect his quality of life because he “came to Jensen Beach because of the natural shoreline and the protection that it afforded to residents in terms of natural beauty” and that, in his view, the project “just adds to the incredible bulk that we have here in the property in terms of building in our natural shoreline.” Petitioner Michael Cilurso drives by the property where the permitted activities will be located on a fairly regular basis. He goes onto the property “occasionally” to “look around.” He has waded in the water adjacent to the property and has seen blue crabs, small fish, and underwater vegetation. Mr. Cilurso testified that the project will affect him in two ways: first, he will no longer be able to “go from the road and just walk down and wade around in [the river] and enjoy the natural resources;” and second, the proposed development of the overall Reily property will affect his “quality of life” because “the density [is] going to be more than what we thought would be a fit for our community.” Petitioner Thomas Fullman can see the Indian River from his house across the Reily property. He and his family have “spent time down at the causeway,” and they have “enjoyed the river immensely with all of its amenities” over the years. He is concerned that the project will affect his “quality of life” and “have effects on the environment and aquatic preserve [that he and his family] have learned to appreciate.” The Permit (1) Generally The permit authorizes the construction of an 85-foot- long seawall and a 395-foot-long retaining wall on the Reily property and the placement of riprap on the sovereignty submerged lands adjacent to the seawall. The seawall will be located on the mean high water line (MHWL). The riprap will be placed adjacent to the seawall, below the MHWL, and will consist of unconsolidated boulders, rocks, or clean concrete rubble with a diameter of 12 to 36 inches. The retaining wall will be located five feet landward of the MHWL, except in areas where there are mangroves landward of the MHWL. In those areas, the retaining wall will be located "landward of the mangroves". The permit does not require the retaining wall to be any particular distance landward of the mangroves or even outside of the mangrove canopy. The drawings attached to the permit show the retaining wall located under the mangrove canopy. The permit does not authorize any mangrove trimming. The areas landward of the seawall and retaining wall will be backfilled to the level of Indian River Drive. There will be swales and/or dry retention areas in the backfilled areas to capture storm water and/or direct it away from the river. The retaining wall will connect to an existing seawall on the Conchy Joe property immediately to the north of the Reily property. The seawall will connect to the approved, but not yet built seawall on the Dutcher property immediately to the south of the Reily property. The permit requires the use of erosion control devices and turbidity curtains during the construction of the walls in order to prevent violations of state water quality standards. (2) Permit Application and Review by the Department On or about June 23, 2005, Reily sought a determination from the Department that the seawall and retaining wall were not subject to the Department’s permitting jurisdiction. The project, as initially proposed, did not include the placement of riprap along the seawall. The Department informed Respondent in a letter dated October 11, 2005, that “the proposed seawall is within the Department’s jurisdiction.” The letter further stated that the Department was going to “begin processing [the] application as a standard general permit,” and it requested additional information from Reily regarding the project. The Department’s request for additional information (RAI) asked Reily to “justify the need for a seawall” and to “provide a detailed explanation” as to why the “use of vegetation and/or riprap is not feasible at the site” for shoreline stabilization. Reily responded as follows: Recent hurricanes have destroyed any vegetation that existed within the area of the proposed seawall. Shoreline has been lost and the DOT has had to backfill nearby upland areas and repair the roads due to significant erosion. The application is proposing to place riprap along the foot of the proposed seawall. There is no reason to believe that there will not be more storms in the near future and it is the applicants’ [sic] position that the seawall for this area is the only way to assure permanent shoreline stabilization and would be in the public’s best interest. The RAI also asked Reily to provide “a detailed statement describing the existing and proposed upland uses and activities.” (Emphasis in original). In response, Reily stated: “The existing upland use is an R.V. resort complex. The proposed use will remain the same.” The RAI also asked Reily to “provide details on the current condition of the shoreline at the site, including the location of mangroves and other wetland vegetation" and to "indicate if any impacts to these resources are proposed.” (Emphasis supplied). In response, Reily stated: “Please see plan view drawing sheet 2 of 4 that clearly shows that the proposed retaining wall will be located landward of the existing mangroves.” The sheet referenced in the response to the RAI does not show the location of wetland vegetation as requested by the Department. The referenced sheet is also inconsistent with other drawings submitted by Reily (e.g., sheet 3 of 4), which show that the proposed retaining wall will be located under the mangrove canopy, not landward of the existing mangroves. Reily’s response to the RAI was submitted on or about February 23, 2006. The Department gave notice of its intent to issue the permit on April 19, 2006. The permit included a number of general and specific conditions imposed by the Department. The permit states a petition challenging the issuance of the permit must be filed “within 14 days of publication of the notice or within 14 days of receipt of the written notice, whichever occurs first.” Notice of the Department’s intent to issue the permit was not published, and the record does not establish when Petitioners received written notice of the permit and the “notice of rights” contained therein. Mr. Cilurso acknowledged that he “found out about the DEP permit to Mr. Reily [approximately] six or eight months before [his] deposition in October [2006]” and then discussed it with the other Petitioners, but that testimony does not establish when the Petitioners received actual written notice of the permit. Petitioners’ challenge to the permit was filed with the Department on or about July 3, 2006. (3) The Related Pitchford’s Landing Project Contrary to the representation made by Reily to the Department during the permitting process, the evidence presented at the final hearing establishes that Reily is proposing to change the use of the upland property from an RV park to a residential development known as Pitchford’s Landing. A master site plan for the Pitchford’s Landing development was submitted to Martin County for approval in April 2006. The site plan (Pet. Ex. 10) shows extensive residential development to the west of Indian River Drive, including single- family lots and multi-story condominium buildings; construction of a sidewalk, bike path, pool, cabana, public pier, and riverwalk to the east of Indian River Drive; the refurbishment of Dena’s restaurant; and the "proposed seawall." Petitioners were aware that the plans for Pitchford’s Landing included a seawall by April 2006, but the evidence was not persuasive that they had received written notice of the Department’s intent to issue the permit at that time. The Pitchford’s Landing development will require changes to the land use designation of the Reily property in the Martin County Comprehensive Plan as well as zoning changes. Those local approvals had not been obtained as of the date of the final hearing. The plans for the Pitchford’s Landing development are being revised based, at least in part, on opposition from Petitioners and others involved in an “association” known as The Jensen Beach Group. Petitioners Cilurso and Fuller are active members of the group, and Petitioner Parkinson has also participated in the group’s activities. Bruce Jerner, one of Reily’s consultants, testified to his understanding that the pool, cabana, and riverwalk shown on the master site plan are being removed from the Pitchford’s Landing development. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the Reily property to the east of Indian River Drive and/or the other improvements on that property (including the hardened shoreline authorized by the permit) are being removed from the Pichford’s Landing develoment. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the proposed seawall, retaining wall, and riprap are part of the larger Pitchford’s Landing development. The walls were referred to on the master site plan for the development; they were depicted and discussed in an advertising brochure as an amenity of the development; and signs advertising Pitchford’s Landing are located on the Reily property to the east of Indian River Drive on which the seawall and retaining wall will be located. There is no evidence that the Pitchford’s Landing development has received a permit from SFWMD under Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The master site plan for Pitchford’s Landing shows several “dry retention areas” to the west of Indian River Drive, and as noted above, there will be swales and/or dry retention areas in the backfilled areas behind the retaining wall and seawall to capture storm water and/or direct it away from the river. It cannot be inferred from that evidence alone, however, that the Pitchford’s Landing development will require permits from SFWMD under Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Merits of the Project The Indian River in the vicinity of the Reily property is a Class III waterbody, an outstanding Florida water (OFW), and part of the Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve. The Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve is one of three aquatic preserves that encompass the Indian River Lagoon system that extends from Vero Beach to Jupiter Inlet. The Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve is 37 miles long and encompasses approximately 22,000 acres of surface water area. The entire Indian River Lagoon system is 49 miles long, with approximately 33,000 acres of surface water area. The Management Plan that was adopted for the Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve in January 1985 described the Indian River Lagoon system, and explained its ecological importance as follows: The Indian River Lagoon area is a long, shallow lagoonal estuary important in this region for its value to recreational and commercial fishing, boating and prime residential development. The preserve is in a rapidly growing urban area affected by agriculture and residential drainage. The majority of the shoreline is mangrove fringed, with scattered development in single family residences and a few condominiums. The lagoon is bounded on the west by the Florida mainland and on the east by barrier islands. The Intracoastal Waterway runs the length of the lagoon, which is designated as a wilderness preserve. The estuary is an important home and nursery area for an extensive array of fish and wildlife. The major problems in the continued health of this area include the construction of major drainage networks that have increased the fresh water flow into the estuary, and the loss of wetland areas and water quality degradation associated with agricultural drainage and urban runoff. Additionally, the Intracoastal Waterway and the maintained inlets have changed the historical flushing and circulation within the lagoon system. The Management Plan explained that the “major objectives of the aquatic preserve management program are to manage the preserve to ensure the maintenance of an essentially natural condition, and to restore and enhance those conditions which are not in a natural condition.” The Management Plan recognizes “the rightful traditional uses of those near-shore sovereignty lands lying adjacent to upland properties,” and with respect to bulkheads, the Management Plan states: Bulkheads should be placed, when allowed, in such a way as to be the least destructive and disruptive to the vegetation and other resource factors in each area. Approved uses which do destruct or destroy resources on state-owned lands will require mitigation. The mitigation will include restoration by the applicant or other remedy which will compensate for the loss of the affected resource to the aquatic preserve. Most of the shoreline along the Reily property is a gently sloping sandy beach that has been previously disturbed, and is largely barren of vegetation. There are, however, areas along the shoreline where dense vegetation exists, including wetland vegetation and three stands of mature red and black mangroves. Birds, fish, and wildlife have been observed on and around the Reily property. However, there is no credible evidence that any listed species use the uplands or near-shore waters where the project will be located. The sovereignty submerged lands immediately adjacent to the Reily property on which the riprap will be placed are barren, sandy, and silty. There are seagrasses in the vicinity of the Reily property, but they are 30 to 50 feet from the shoreline. The seagrasses include Johnson’s seagrass, which is a listed species. There are no significant historical or archeological resources in the vicinity of the Reily property, according to the Department of State, Division of Historical Resources. In 2004, Hurricanes Frances and Jean made landfall in Martin County in the vicinity of the Reily property. The hurricanes washed out portions of Indian River Drive, including a portion of the road approximately one-half mile north of the Reily property. After the hurricanes, Martin County considered placing bulkhead along the entire length of Indian River Drive to provide shoreline stabilization and to prevent further damage to the road in major storm events. The county did not pursue the plan because it determined that it was not financially feasible. The portion of Indian River Drive along the Reily property did not wash out during the 2004 hurricanes. Nevertheless, on November 4, 2004, because of concerns for the stability of the shoreline along the Reily property, the Department issued an Emergency Field Authorization to the prior owner of the property allowing the installation of 160 linear feet of riprap along the shoreline. The riprip authorized by the Emergency Field Authorization was to be placed considerably further landward than the structures authorized by the permit at issue in this case. The record does not reflect why the riprap was not installed. The evidence was not persuasive that the Reily property has experienced significant erosion or that the project is necessary to protect Indian River Drive or the upland property from erosion. The project will, however, have those beneficial effects. No formal wetland delineation was done in the areas landward of the MHWL or the areas that will be backfilled behind the proposed seawall and retaining wall and, as noted above, Reily did not identify the location of wetland vegetation and any impacts to such vegetation in response to the RAI. Mr. Jerner testified that, in his opinion, there are no wetlands landward of the MHWL in the area of the seawall, and that any wetlands in the area of the retaining wall are waterward of that wall, which will be at least five feet landward of the MHWL. The Department’s witness, Jennifer Smith, testified that it was her understanding that the wetlands did not extend into the areas behind the seawall or retaining walls, but she acknowledged that she did not ground-truth the wetland boundaries and that wetland vegetation appeared to extend into areas that will be backfilled. Petitioners’ expert, James Egan, testified that the wetlands likely extended into areas that will be backfilled based upon the topography of the shoreline and the wetland vegetation that he observed, but he made no effort to delineate the extent of the wetlands in those areas and he testified that he would defer to the Department's wetland delineation if one had been done. The Department’s wetland delineation rules in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-340 contain a detailed quantitative methodology to be used in making formal wetland boundary delineations. That methodology is to be used only where the wetland boundaries cannot be delineated through a visual on-site inspection (with particular attention to the vegetative communities and soil conditions) or aerial photointerpretation in combination with ground truthing. Thus, the Department’s failure to do a formal wetland delineation (with soil sampling, etc.) in the project area was not per se inappropriate, as Mr. Egan seemed to suggest. That said, the more persuasive evidence fails to establish that Reily made an appropriate effort to delineate the landward extent of the wetlands in the project area. No delineation of the wetland areas was provided in response to the RAI, and Ms. Smith’s testimony raises more questions than it answers regarding the correctness of Mr. Jerner’s conclusory opinion that the wetland boundary is waterward of the retaining wall. Without an appropriate delineation of the wetland boundaries, it cannot be determined with certainty whether or not there are wetlands in the areas that will be backfilled. The evidence establishes there may be wetlands in those areas; and if there are, the impacts to those wetlands have not been assessed or mitigated. Riprap is a better method of shoreline stabilization than a vertical seawall without riprap. The riprap helps to prevent shoaling by absorbing wave energy, and it also provides habitat for benthic organisms, crustaceans, and small fish. Native vegetation provides these same benefits, and all of the experts agreed that it is the best method of shoreline stabilization from an environmental standpoint. The use of native vegetation to provide shoreline stabilization along the Reily property is not a reasonable alternative under the circumstances. First, the shoreline has not experienced any significant vegetative recruitment since the 2004 hurricanes. Second, the property is not wide enough to accommodate the amount of vegetation that would be needed to stabilize the shoreline. Third, the properties immediately to the north and south of the Reily property are already (or soon will be) protected by seawalls and/or riprap, rather than native vegetation. The project will not adversely affect the property of others. The evidence was not persuasive that the project will cause erosion or other impacts to the adjacent properties, particularly since the adjacent properties have, or soon will have hardened shorelines. The project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife and, to the contrary, the riprap will provide a benefit to fish and wildlife by providing shelter and habitat for benthic organisms, crustaceans, and small fish. The project will not adversely affect endangered or threatened species or their habitat. The only listed species shown to exist in the vicinity of the project, Johnson’s seagrass, is 30 to 50 feet from the shoreline, which is too far away from the project to be affected even if, as suggested by Petitioners' experts, the impact of wave energy on the walls will cause increased turbidity and sedimentation. The project will not adversely impact the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the area. The waters in the vicinity of the project are not shellfish harvesting areas, and the riprap will provide beneficial habitat for small marine life. The project will not adversely affect navigation. The riprap will extend only four feet into the Indian River in an area of shallow water far from the channel of the river. The project will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling or adversely affect water quality in the area. The evidence was not persuasive that wave energy will routinely impact the retaining wall to an extent that will cause increased turbidity or sedimentation in the surrounding waters, and all of the experts agreed that the riprap will help to prevent this from occurring along the seawall. Moreover, the swales and/or dry retention areas behind the seawall and retaining wall will help to filter storm water runoff from Indian River Drive and the adjacent upland properties, which may enhance the water quality in the vicinity of the project. The project will not result in any adverse secondary or cumulative impacts to the water resources. The adjacent properties already have hardened shorelines. The permit conditions include adequate safeguards (e.g., turbidity curtains and erosion control devices) to protect the water resources in the aquatic preserve during construction of the project. Any impact (either positive or negative) of the project on the aquatic preserve and the Indian River Lagoon system as a whole will be de minimus in light of size of the system in comparison to the small size of the project and its location between two hardened shorelines near a man-made causeway.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order dismissing Petitioners’ challenge to the permit/authorization for a lack of standing, but if the Department determines that Petitioners have standing, it should issue a final order denying permit/authorization No. 43-017751-003 absent an additional condition requiring an appropriate wetland delineation to show that the upland aspects of the project will occur outside of the mangrove canopy and any other wetland areas landward of the MHWL. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Twelve-acre Lake Tresca lies at an elevation of approximately 8 feet on the northern edge of sand dunes that stretch some 250 yards south to the Gulf of Mexico in Walton County, Florida, just east of Eastern Lake. According to one of petitioners' witnesses, this group of freshwater lakes in a dune system may be unique. Lake Tresca is a source of freshwater for migrating birds, at the gulf's edge. White, great blue, and Louisiana herons feed in the lake's shallows. Purple martins are present in numbers. The eastern lobe of Lake Tresca is in excellent place for birds to feed and nest. The lake has a balanced fish population. Game fish as big as the ten-pound bass spotted by Douglas B. Bailey of the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission have smaller fish on which to feed, including gambusia and other minnows that feed, in turn, on mosquito larvae. Lake Tresca is oligotrophic. There are no aquatic weeds, but there are fragrant water lilies, bladder wort, yellow-eyed grass, and other plant species valuable to wildlife. Most of the lake bottom is bare of vegetation, but the shallow, littoral portions support various plants, including significant colonies of rooted macrophytes, and furnish a suitable habitat for bedding fish. This vegetation removes some nutrients, makes others more usable, filters runoff from the surrounding yards, and stabilizes the shoreline. Bacteria and algae, primary constituents of the lake's "food web," also flourish in Lake Tresca. A shallow area of Lake Tresca stretches across part of Mr. Copelan's half-acre lot onto the Pettengills' lot. The application for permit uses this diagram to represent the configuration: * NOTE: A map of the pond is on the Recommended Order on file with DOAH and is not available in this ACCESS document. Lake Tresca Copelan Property Pettengill Property Petitioners' Exhibit No. 9. (Legend supplied.) The Pettengills have built a house on their lot for occasional, seasonal use and with a view toward his retirement. Their septic tank is about 80 feet from the lake. The house was built to take advantage of the prevailing southwesterlies and has a porch facing Lake Tresca and the causeway. The house has no air conditioning. Except for the causeway, Mr. Copelan's lot is unimproved. There are about 14 other riparian owners many of whom have built houses and put in septic tanks. After discussions between Mr. Copelan and Mr. Pettengill about an easement across the Pettengill property, to provide access overland to the Copelan property, had faltered, Mr. Copelan indicated that he might place fill dirt across the lake so as to block the Pettengills' access to the main body of the lake and to create a roadbed for travel across the lake to and from his lot. As a result, on April 20, 1980, Mr. Pettengill wrote Mr. Copelan a letter in which he stated: Any dredging, filling or other manmade changes may be accomplished only if proper permits are obtained in advance for them. I have taken the liberty of attaching copies of relevant sections of Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code regarding the required procedures for these activities. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 8. Because, as he testified, Mr. Copelan had no faith in Mr. Pettengill's legal expertise, Mr. Copelan asked Marge Crawford, the real estate agent from whom he had purchased the land-locked lot, to inquire as to permits. At Ms. Crawford's instance, she and Curtis Larry Taylor, an environmental specialist employed by DER in Panama City, visited Lake Tresca on June 16, 1980. In a contemporaneous memorandum, Mr. Taylor recorded his impression that a DER permit "under the authority of Chapter 403 F.S. Section 17-4.28(2)(d) [Florida Administrative Code," DER's Exhibit No. 1, would be necessary for construction of the causeway Mr. Copelan had in mind. He furnished Ms. Crawford an application form to forward to Mr. Copelan. On June 19, 1980, Ms. Crawford wrote Mr. Copelan: I met with Mr. Taylor, of the Department of Natural Resources, Dredging and Fill Department and inspected the site at which you would like to put in a drive way. Mr. Taylor said he saw little inpact [sic] on the invironment [sic] and would recom- mend a permit be given. This would take 6 to 8 weeks with out any protests. The DNR will contact property owners around that portion of the lake. If there is a protest there will be a delay'. I think you can expect a protest from at least two owners. Fill out the application as soon as possible and mail it to the location indicated on the form. If I can be of help with he applica- tion let me know. I asked Mr. Taylor what would happen if you just went ahead and fill[ed] in that portion of the lake. He said nothing unless some- one files a complaint and then it could be costly, attorney fees. I also got another price on a road in for the long way, $8/per foot. Joint Exhibit No. 7. Mr. Copelan received and read the letters from Mr. Pettengill and Ms. Crawford, and read highlighted portions of the dredge and fill rules Mr. Pettengill sent him. In early August, without having applied for a permit, Mr. Copelan contracted with James A. Madden for the construction of a causeway across the eastern lobe of Lake Tresca. Work began in early August of 1980 and continued for four working days, a weekend intervening. Mr. Madden and his son used dump trucks and a bulldozer to haul sand from a borrow pit Mr. Madden has leased and to build a causeway 162 feet long with a top surface approximately 12 feet wide. About midway they placed a culvert with a 12-inch diameter to join Lake Tresca to the pool on the Pettengills' property severed by the causeway from the rest of the lake. On either side of the causeway, waiter lily and bladder wort are the predominant plant species. On August 11, 1980, Mr. Pettengill told DER's Mr. Taylor that work on the causeway had begun. The following day Mr. Taylor visited the site, and found yellow sand fill about 18 to 24 inches deep covering an area approximately 15 feet by 45 feet. Joint Exhibit No. 8. He found no telephone number listed for George Copelan but telephoned Marge Crawford on August 12 or 13, 1980, to ask her to tell Mr. Copelan to stop work. Joint Exhibit No. 8. On August 19, 1980, DER's Northwest District Enforcement Officer, George E. Hoffman, Jr., wrote Mr. Copelan advising him "to cease and desist from any further unauthorized filling." Joint Exhibit No. 5. By the time this letter reached Mr. Copelan, the causeway had been completed. On October 6, 1980, Mr. Copelan wrote Mr. Hoffman saying that he owned the land under the road and in general to the effect that he thought he was within his rights. Joint Exhibit No. 4. Mr. Hoffman responded with a letter to Mr. Copelan on December 23, 1980, in which Mr. Hoffman "requested that [Copelan] voluntarily agree to remove the fill and restore the area to its original contour. Joint Exhibit No. 6. This letter stated that, "Otherwise, the Department will have no alternative but to initiate a formal administrative enforcement proceeding . . . seeking the restoration." Joint Exhibit No. 6. On February 27, 1981, DER filed its notice of violation, No. DF-010- 81-NW, finding that the filling accomplished before August 12, 1980, had been accomplished without a permit, and that it "will have a detrimental [e]ffect on the water quality and may be potentially harmful . . . to the aquatic life of the lake" and that it had "created pollution violating Section 403.161(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and the rules of the Department." Joint Exhibit No. 1. Orders for corrective action contained in the same document proposed to require Mr. Copelan to reimburse DER for its expenses "in tracing, controlling and abating the source of pollution," to "cease aid desist from further unauthorized filling," and to remove the fill and restore the area to its original contours (even though by this time the causeway had been completed). Joint Exhibit No. 1. DER inspected on March 2, 1981, and learned that the causeway had been completed. Thereafter, the parties agreed to a consent order dated May 5, 1981, which provided, in part: Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Order, the Respon- dent shall submit an after-the-fact permit application for the construction and/or filling project described in this Order [the causeway] In the event the application is determined to be incomplete, the Respondent shall provide the requested additional information within a fifteen (15) day period. * * * In the event the application is denied, the Respondent agrees to remove the fill material and restore the area to its preproject contours within forty-five (45) days of the receipt of final agency action. Respondent does not waive his right to claim that the aforementioned fill project is exempt from the Department's permitting requirements and that this defense may be asserted by the Respondent in any future pleadings of proceedings. The Department, for and in consid- eration of the complete and timely perfor- mance by the Respondent of the obligations contained in this Consent Order, hereby agrees to waive its right to seek the judi- cial imposition of damages or civil penalties or to seek criminal penalties for the alleged violations outlined in this Consent Order. * * * 9. This Consent Order shall be a final agency action of the Department and may be enforced pursuant to Sections 120.69 and 403.121, Florida Statutes. The Respondent hereby waives any right to a hearing or administrative or judicial review of the provisions of this Consent Order provided however that the Respondent does not waive the right to assert defenses available pur- suant to Section 120.69(5), Florida Statutes, should the Department seek judicial enforce- ment of the Consent Order. The Respondent's failure to comply with the terms of this Consent Order shall constitute a violation of Section 403.161, Florida Statutes. Joint Exhibit No. 2. In accordance with the consent order, Mr. Copelan filed an application for an after-the-fact permit, which DER received on June 8, 1981. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 9. At DER's request, on August 17, 1981, James R. Webb, Esquire, counsel for Mr. Copelan, sent DER copies of a survey including a plan view and a cross- sectional view of the causeway, Applicant's Exhibit No. 2; Petitioners' Exhibit No. 10, and, on November 2, 1981, copies of a survey showing the approximate ordinary high water line. Applicant's Exhibit No. 2. Neither the application nor the supplemental information was prepared by a professional engineer. DER determined the application to be complete on November 3, 1981, and, on January 7, 1982, issued its intent to issue a permit to partially after-the-fact construct a road- way approximately 80' long by 20' wide by 3' high, in accordance with the attached drawing labelled "Fill Road" Sheet 1, Revi- sion No. 1 by R.E.P. 13 August, 1981; located in Section 19, Township 3 South, Range 18 West. Joint Exhibit No. 10. According to the case file, DER received the Pettengills' administrative petition for section 120.57 hearing on January 21, 1982; but a permit was nevertheless inadvertently mailed to Mr. Copelan on January 29, 1982. On receipt of the permit, Mr. Copelan caused oyster shells to be placed on the roadbed and sod to be planted along the sides of the causeway. The permit was followed by a letter from DER instructing Mr. Copelan to disregard it. APPLICATION INACCURATE In describing the causeway, the application gives its dimensions as "approximately 10 feet wide by 30 feet in length." Petitioners' Exhibit No. 9. In fact, the top surface of the (causeway is 12 feet wide and the causeway is broader at the base. It is 20 feet across at one point, according to Petitioners' Exhibit No. 10. From a surveyor's drawing subsequently furnished at DER.'s request, Petitioners' Exhibit No. 10, DER inferred that the road was 80 feet long, even though this drawing was not accompanied by an amendment to the written description of the project. In fact, the causeway is 162 feet long, and not 30 or 80 feet long. The application states that the culvert has a diameter of 19 inches. In fact, the culvert had a diameter of 12 inches, so that the application overstates the area of the cross-section by more than 150 percent. Under the "Remarks" section of Mr. Copelan's application appears the following: Applicant was under the belief that no permit was necessary at the time of commencement and completion of the project. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 9. In fact, Mr. Copelan had been informed twice in writing that he needed a permit to place fill in the lake and had even been furnished an application form, but went ahead anyway, without seeking legal advice, or contacting DER. Lake Tresca is not a man-made lake as stated on the application. Construction of a causeway was completed by mid-August and did not occur on September 1 and 2, 1980, as stated in the application. In what was apparently a typographical error, the township is stated as 35, rather than 3 South, on the application originally filed, Petitioners' Exhibit No. 9, but this error is rectified in a later submission. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 10. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS Since the fill was originally placed, it has spread out along the bottom or "migrated." Along its southern extent, the causeway now overlaps the Pettengills' property. The road has the effect of blocking access to Lake Tresca for the Pettengills. They have, indeed, sold their boat now that they can no longer make their wonted use of it on the lake. DISSOLVED OXYGEN, TRANSPARENCY, HEAVY METALS The water in Lake Tresca Is very clear, except for an iridescent sheen in the vicinity of the causeway, and an organic scum on the water restricted by the causeway. Analysis of water samples taken at four locations in Lake Tresca by Petitioners' own expert revealed no violations of the dissolved oxygen standards. There was speculation but no hard evidence that lead and other heavy metals associated with automobile pollution may have made their way into Lake Tresca as a result of the causeway. OILS AND GREASES Mr. Madden, the contractor, did not add oil or grease to the fill he used to build a causeway through Lake Tresca. He has used fill from the same borrow pit on other projects and has had no complaints that it was oily or greasy. But there was no oil or grease on the lake before Mr. Copelan had the road put in. When the fill was originally placed, in the fall of 1980, there was a distinct petroleum odor, for the first time, particularly in humid weather. Mr. Ryan detected a strong petroleum odor as recently as February of this year, but the odor has abated over time somewhat. Oils and greases have coated the water's surface with an iridescent film, on either side of the southern stretch of the causeway, since it was built. Nowhere else in the lake can oils and greases be detected visually. Three water samples taken near the causeway on February 6, 1982, were analyzed and found to con-tain 3.2, 4.1, and 5.4 milligrams per liter (or parts per million) of oils and greases. A water sample taken elsewhere in the lake on the same day, although at another well-vegetated location, was found to contain less than one part per 100 million (.01 mg. per liter) oils and greases. Mr. Taylor is one of three DER employees who has seen a sheen on the water near the causeway, even after the sod and oyster shells were added. Another DER employee, Lynn Griffin, testifying as an expert in general biology with a special emphasis on oil pollution, concluded that the oil and grease she saw in Lake Tresca came from the causeway, because she discovered no other possible source. Her uncontroverted testimomy specifically rejected the theory that this greasy film could be traced to septic tanks, because the bacteria in septic tanks produce a milky liquid, not an oil sheen. DER's John B. Outland testified unequivocally that the oil and grease on the surface of Lake Tresca either leached out of the fill or came from equipment operated on the fill road. Petitioners' chemist would have had to use another test in addition to the Soxhlet extraction method he did use, in order to establish to a scientific certainty that the oils and greases he identified in samples taken from Lake Tresca were petroleum hydrocarbons. But with convincing testimony that what looked like petroleum also smelt like petroleum, other evidence did establish that the oils and greases were petroleum derivatives. BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS Placement of fill on the lake bottom eliminated benthic organisms that have not reestablished themselves on the submerged causeway surface, nor on dry land above water, subject to the disturbances of automobile traffic. Habitat, shelter, and forage for fishes and invertebrates have been destroyed; bacterial and algal processes have been eliminated. No animals live on top of the submerged fill even though certain larvae may be found less than a meter away, and several animals thrive in the vegetated areas of Lake Tresca. Although the filled area covers no more than 2,000 square feet, the oils and greases spread out over a larger area, with dimensions not established by the evidence. The iridescent oily film decreases the amount of light penetrating to plants underneath and so reduces photosynthesis in benthic plants. In the short term, oils and greases obstruct gas and nutrient exchanges necessary to plant life and may cause acute toxicity or death. In the long term, oils and greases can cause neoplasia and affect the reproductive capacity and so the growth rate of animals. They can be taken into lipid-rich eggs and other tissues, contaminating the food web. The untoward effects of oils and grease are more critical in the part of the lake cut off and restricted by the causeway, because of the lack of adequate circulation. There is at present plant and animal life in this part of the lake, nevertheless, and similar fauna and flora in the shallow area of the lake stretching 300 to 400 feet toward open water on the other side of the causeway. The causeway has eliminated a narrow strip from this biologically productive area, an area that also serves to filter pollutants from upland runoff. The full extent of the deleterious effects of the oils and greases is not yet known. In preparing the foregoing findings of fact, the hearing officer has had the benefit of petitioners' proposed recommended order and the department's proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, proposed recommended order, and memorandum, all adopted by the applicant. To the extent proposed findings of fact have not been adopted, they have been rejected as unsupported by the evidence or irrelevant to the issues.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DER deny the application for an after-the-fact permit to create a fill road across Lake Tresca, and order respondent George Copelan to restore the area to its preproject contours within forty-five (45) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1982 COPIES FURNISHED: Randall E. Denker, Esquire 103 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gordon D. Cherr, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Webb, Esquire Post Office Box 385 Destin, Florida 32541 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION DWYNAL and IONA PETTENGILL, Petitioners, vs. CASE NO. 82-294 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and GEORGE COPLAN, Respondents. /
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings and Conclusions of Law it is hereby Recommended that the Respondent, DER, issue a permit to Respondent, Fano Holding Corporation, to construct a 200 foot long by 5 foot wide pier with a 100 foot long by 5 foot wide "T" at the waterward end, as set forth hereinabove. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of October, 1978, in Tallahassee Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Segundo Fernandez, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Twin Towers Office Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Diane S. Guthrie, Esquire Spielvogel & Goldman, P.A. P.O. Box 1366 Merritt Island, Florida 3252 Edward M. Jackson, Esquire P.O. Box 127 Cocoa, Florida 32922 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION T. OSBORNE, et al., Petitioner, vs. DOAH Case NO.: 78-753 DER FILE NO.: 05-30-0543-4E FANO HOLDING CORPORATION and (6826) STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
The Issue Has the applicant, Grove Isle, Ltd. provided reasonable assurances and affirmatively demonstrated that its proposed marina is clearly in the public interest and will not lower the existing ambient water quality of Biscayne Bay, a designated outstanding Florida water?
Findings Of Fact On March 13, 1978 an application was made to DER for a water quality control permit to construct a wet-slip marina on the west side of Grove Isle, formerly known as Fair Isle and Sailboat Key. The original plan for the marina, which was initially objected to by the Department of Environmental Regulation, was modified to protect a bed of seagrasses extending about 30 feet wide in a band along the west side of the island. While the plans were being modified and consultations with other government permitting agencies were in progress, the application was "deactivated" from September 27, 1978 until March 30, 1979. As a result of its investigation and review, DER on October 23, 1979, issued a letter of intent to grant the permit to Grove Isle, Inc. The permit if granted, would allow the applicant to construct six concrete fixed piers, five "T" shaped, one "L" shaped, with a boat docking capacity of 90 pleasure boats. The piers will extend a maximum of 165 feet offshore from an existing concrete bulkhead. The width of the piers will be 8 feet from the bulkhead to a point 41 feet offshore, and then increased to a width of 10 feet. A sewage pump-out facility is also proposed. Attached to that letter of intent were the following conditions: Adequate control shall be taken during the construction so that turbidity levels outside a 50 foot radius of the work area do not exceed 50 J.C.U's, as per Section 24-11, of the Metropolitan Dade County Code. During construction, turbidity samples shall be collected at a mid-depth twice daily at a point 50 feet up stream and at a point 50 feet down stream from the work area. The contractor shall arrange to have turbidity sample results reported to him within one hour of collection. Turbidity monitoring reports shall be submitted weekly to DER and to the Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Resources Management (MDCERM) If turbidity exceeds 50 J.C.U's beyond a 50 foot radius of the work area, turbidity curtains shall be placed around the work area and MDCERM notified immediately. Turbidity samples shall be collected according to condition two above, no later than one hour after the installation of the turbidity curtain. It turbidity levels do not drop below 50 J.C.U's within one hour of installation of the curtain all construction shall be halted. Construction shall not be resumed until the contractor has received authorization from MDCERM. No live-a-board vessels (permanent or transient) shall be docked at this facility unless direct sewage pump-out connections are provided at each live-a-board slip. A permanent pump-out station shall be installed and maintained for further removal of sewage and waste from the vessels using this facility. Compliance with this requirement will entail the applicant's contacting the Plan Review Section of MDCERM for details concerning connection to an approved disposal system. Boat traffic in the shallow 30 foot wide dense seagrass area which parallels the shoreline shall be restricted by the placement of wood piles on 6 foot centers along the entire shoreline facing the marina. The channel from this marina to deeper water in Biscayne Bay shall be marked to prevent boats from straying into adjacent shallow areas. This will prevent habitat destruction. A chemical monitoring program shall be established to determine the effect of this marina on the water quality of this section of Biscayne Bay. Surface and mid-depth samples shall be collected at three points in the project area and at one background station. Parameters shall include, but not be limited to dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity, temperature, total coliform and fecal coliform and fecal streptococci bacteria, oil and grease, biochemical oxygen demand, and turbidity. Background samples shall be collected prior to construction and quarterly for a minimum of one year after 90 percent occupancy of the marina. In addition to the chemical monitoring program, a benthic community monitoring program is to be established. Samples of the benthic seagrass community within and adjacent to the project area are to be collected prior to construction and quarterly for a minimum of one year after 90 percent occupancy of the marina. Should either monitoring program detect dissimilar changes at its monitoring and control stations, DER and MDCERM shall be notified of the results. The monitoring programs shall be reviewed and approved by DER and MDCERM prior to implementation. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to DER and MDCERM and the United States Corps of Engineers on regular basis. Warning signs shall be posted in the marina area to advise marina users that manatees frequent the area and caution should be taken to avoid collisions with them. With the foregoing conditions imposed, the Department concluded that no significant immediate or long term negative biological impact is anticipated and state water quality standards should not be violated as a result of the proposed construction. Grove Isle, Inc., has agreed to comply with all the conditions established by the DER letter of intent to grant the permit. Grove Isle is a spoil bank in Biscayne Bay located approximately 700 feet east of the Florida mainland. It is linked to the mainland by a two-lane concrete bridge. The island is currently under development for a 510 unit condominium community with associated facilities such as a restaurant, hotel, and the proposed marina. The island is surrounded by a concrete bulkhead constructed many years ago. No changes in the bulkhead line are proposed. Grove Isle, Inc., proposes constructing the marina on concrete piles driven into the Bay bottom from a shallow draft barge. During construction there would be some turbidity caused from the disruption of the Bay sediment. This can however be adequately controlled by the use of turbidity curtains during construction. The construction will not require any dredging or filling. In the immediate marina site the most significant biota are a 30 foot wide bed of seagrasses. There are no other important biota because at one time the area was extensively dredged to create the island. There are no oyster or clam beds nearby. While lobsters may have once frequented the area, they too are no longer present. The water depth in the area ranges from 1 foot near the island bulkhead to 12 feet offshore to the west of the island. This particular seagrass bed consist primarily of turtle grass (thalassia, testudinum) with some Cuban Shoal Weed (Halodule, Wrightii). Protection for these grasses will be provided by a buffer zone between the island and the boat slips. The grassy zone will be bordered by a row of dolphin piles to exclude boat traffic. Because the grass requires sunlight for photosynthesis and therefore life, the six piers will have grated walkways where they pass over the grass. This will allow sunlight to reach below. In addition to the small grass bed on the west of the island there are extensive beds to the northeast, east and south of the island that extend several hundred yards from the island in water depths of three to ten feet. If boat traffic in the vicinity is markedly increased due to the existence of the marina, it is conceivable that the number of propeller scars in these shallow beds could increase. At the present time the beds are already traversed by boats, some of which are owned by Petitioner's members. There are already for example, approximately 50 crafts which operate from the nearby mainland or from Pelican Canal directly to the north of the island. Propeller scars take up to fifteen years to heal yet the number of scars in the Grove Isle area is insignificant and even a tripling of them from an additional 90 boats would still be de minimus. Potential damage to the seagrasses on the north side of the island will be minimized by the planned installation of navigation markers by Grove Isle. These markers will channel boats into water of a navigable depth and lessen the number of groundings and near groundings which cause the scarring. There is evidence that pleasure boats by their very existence and operation in the water are potential pollution sources. For instance, various maintenance chemicals such as anti-fouling bottom paint and wood cleaner have the ability, if used in sufficient quantity, to harm marine life. The fueling of engines and sewage discharge from boats are additional pollution sources. There was however, no showing that the location of up to 90 pleasure and sport fishing craft at the proposed marina site would in any way cause a degradation of water quality below the acceptable standards for Class III waters. At the present time, the marina site has adequate flushing to disburse those pollutants which may be generated by the marina operations. While a hydrographic survey was not requested by DER or provided by Grove Isle at the time the permit application was made, the testimony of Dr. Echternacht at the time of the Hearing provided adequate assurances respecting the hydrographic characteristics of the proposed site. The proposed marina will have no fueling or maintenance facilities. No live-a-board craft will be allowed at the marina. Both Mr. Wm. Cleare Filer and David A. Doheny live close to Grove Isle. Mr. Doheny's residence is on the mainland facing the proposed marina site and Mr. Filer's house is on Pelican Canal. They use the waters of Biscayne Bay around Grove Isle for recreation. If the quality of the water in the proposed marina site were lessened their substantial interest would be affected. Biscayne Bay is classified as a Class III water and is in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. Careful considerations has been given to each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. To the extent that they are not contained in this Order, they are rejected as being either not supported by competent evidence or as immaterial and irrelevant to the issues determined here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, determining that the requested water quality control permit and certification be issued subject to the conditions contained in the Notice of Intent to Issue Permit and that the Relief requested by the Petitioners be denied and their Petitions be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Doheny, Esquire 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Wm. Cleare Filer 3095 Northwest 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Joel Jaffer 2479 Southwest 13th Street Miami, Florida 33145 Randall E. Denker, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry S. Stewart, Esquire Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Richmond & Greer One Biscayne Tower 25th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION BAYSHORE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-2186 79-2324 STATE OF FLORIDA, 79-2354 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and GROVE ISLE, LIMITED, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner is entitled to a dredge and fill permit to construct a dock and seawall by provision of reasonable assurances that the project is in the public interest.
Findings Of Fact On May 8, 1989, the Petitioner, Kathryn Haughney, applied to DER for a permit to construct a dock and seawall on the shore of the Halifax River in Volusia County. The portion of the Haughney property where the dock and seawall would be constructed is separated from the Haughney home by John Anderson Drive, which parallels the river's edge and is separated from the river by a ribbon of undeveloped property at that location and to the south. A house is located at water's edge on the lot to the north of the proposed construction site. The Haughney home itself is set well back from John Anderson drive on the side of the street away from the river. The Halifax River is classified as a Class III water body under DER rules. The particular part of the Halifax River where the Haughney property is located and where the dock and seawall are proposed is also within the Tomoka Marsh Aquatic Preserve, which is an Outstanding Florida Water under DER rules. The dock as proposed by Petitioner will be 320 square feet. DER denied the permit application on July 19, 1990, but in so doing did not deny the application on the basis of the proposed dock, which, because of its dimensions, is exempt from DER permitting requirements. The seawall as proposed is to be 137 feet long. Petitioner applied to extend it 16 feet out into waters of the state at the northern end, gradually increasing to 34 feet into waters of the state at the south end. Additionally, 5 feet of riprap would also extend out into waters of the state along the seawall's entire length. The waters of the state that would be filled by the proposed seawall contain lush wetland vegetation that provides habitat for a number of macroinvertebrate species which are part of the food chain feeding fish and wading birds such as egrets and herons. Fiddler crabs and colonies of mussels have been observed on the site. The area to be filled provides a valuable habitat for fish and wildlife. There was no mitigation offered by Petitioner to make up for the loss of habitat to be occasioned by the proposed construction. Although Petitioner asserted DER had named no "endangered species" and that the Environmental Protection Administration had not designated this area as "endangered," those federal concerns were not at issue. If such federally designated species or location designation existed in the locale, it might militate against granting this application for permit, but in the negative, it is irrelevant. A vertical seawall exists immediately north of Petitioner's shoreline. The shoreline to the south remains undeveloped. (See Finding of Fact 2). Construction of seawalls, especially those that extend out from the existing shoreline, typically causes erosion on adjacent shorelines, and additional seawalls exaggerate wave energy and can have a cumulative erosive effect. The foregoing fact is found in reliance upon the testimony of Don Medellin, an Environmental Specialist II for DER, and Barbara Bess, an Environmental Manager for DER, both accepted as experts in environmental aspects of dredge and fill permits. The assertion that actual erosion on the property to the south has already occurred was contained in a letter from Petitioner's southern neighbor (DER Exhibit 6). Petitioner's representatives objected to consideration of this exhibit as "hearsay." They are correct and current erosion to the south is not found as a fact. Nonetheless, actual erosion in a pocket on the north end of Petitioner's shoreline has been shown by the direct testimony of Emmett and Martha Haughney, who assert that their property is eroding due to the existing seawall and that Petitioner wants a permit for a seawall to alleviate this erosion. Their evidence is confirmed by the personal observations and testimony of Mr. Medellin and Ms. Bess. Further, upon their testimony, it is accepted that this minimal pocket of erosion is most likely due to the existing seawall to the north and that if the Petitioner builds a seawall to the specifications now set out in the permit application, there is potential for similar and perhaps cumulative erosion to the shoreline to the south of Petitioner's lot. Neither the city nor county involved has land use restrictions which would prohibit Petitioner's proposed seawall except that Volusia County advocates riprap requirements if this permit application were granted. In its Notice of Permit Denial, DER advised Petitioner as follows: The Department has determined that the follow- ing changes to the project may make the project permittable: The vertical seawall should be eliminated and replaced with coquina rock riprap revet- ment. The riprap should be located further landward and conform to the slope of the existing embankment. Backfilling on the north property line is acceptable provided the fill area does not extend more than 10 feet westward in the most eroded area. Accordingly, the riprap could extend to the adjacent seawall and gradually extend in a more landward direc- tion to prevent excessive elimination of the littoral zone vegetation. Whatever alternative the applicant elects to choose, the removal or elimination of littoral zone vegetation must be offset in the form of mitigation if the impacts can not be reduced any further. Finally, the agent should eliminate the use of generic drawings which must be continually revised. All drawings should reflect the existing and proposed conditions and the impacts associated with the project. Petitioner's contractor, Andy Harris, testified to other alternatives that could be used by Petitioner in constructing her seawall, but the evidence of Mr. Medellin and Ms. Bess is persuasive that the alternative measures proposed by Mr. Harris would not provide the reasonable assurances the law requires DER to obtain from Petitioner.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order affirming its July 19, 1990 Notice of Permit Denial. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-7215 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's letter to Hearing Officer (filed March 22, 1991) The first paragraph complains that a VCR was unavailable in the hearing room so that Petitioner's videotape could not be shown. Petitioner should have made arrangements for showing the tape and did not. Likewise, Petitioner never offered the tape in evidence (for viewing by the Hearing Officer afterwards in preparation of this Recommended Order). Therefore, it very properly was not considered. The next 3 paragraphs refer to the Casden letter (DER Exhibit 6), which is covered in FOF 8-9. The remaining paragraphs are rhetoric and legal argument upon which no ruling need to made under Section 120.59(2) F.S.; however, they are alluded to in the Conclusions of Law. Petitioner's letter to DER Counsel (filed March 25, 1991 by DER, suggesting it was Petitioner's proposed findings of fact) 1-3 For the reasons set out above, the Petitioner's videotape was not considered. The subject of erosion to the degree proved at the hearing is covered in the Recommended Order. 4-5, PS 1-3 Mere rhetoric and legal argument upon which no ruling need be made under Section 120.59(2) F.S.; covered in the Conclusions of Law to the degree appropriate. Respondent's PFOF: 1-11 Accepted as modified to reflect the greater weight of the credible and probative record evidence as a whole. That which is rejected is rejected as not proven or not persuasive. Unnecessary or irrelevant material has likewise been excluded. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas MacLaughlin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kathryn Haughney 2301 John Anderson Drive Ormond Beach, FL 32074 Emmett and Martha Haughney 2301 John Anderson Drive Ormond Beach, FL 32074 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The Hearing Officer's findings of fact in both the First Recommended Order and the Recommended Order As To Matters On Remand are accepted except as otherwise noted in either this Final Order After Remand or the First Final Order. The Florida Audubon has filed 80 pages of exceptions comprising 98 exceptions to findings of fact and 33 exceptions to conclusions of law. I have grouped these exceptions and ruled on them under the categories listed below. Scope of Remand and Hearing Officer's Preliminary Statement. Florida Audubon's Exceptions No. 1(A)-1(G), 2(A)-2(M), 3(A)-3(C), 4(A)- 4(B), 5(A)-5(C) and 9(A)(3) in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's preliminary statement of the background of the case and the scope of the issues on remand. My review of the record in this case leads me to conclude that the Hearing Officer's factual summary and statement of the issues on remand in her preliminary statement is an accurate and concise description of the background of this case and is based on matters of record and competent substantial evidence. Accordingly, I reject these exceptions. Furthermore, the Hearing Officer's preliminary statement comprises neither findings of fact nor conclusions of law. Therefore, a ruling on these exceptions is not actually required. 5/ Nature of the Proposed Development. Florida Audubon's Exceptions 8(A)-8(I) in whole or part take exception to the Hearing Officer's description in F.O.F. Nos. 1-9 of the nature of the proposed development. These exceptions do not assert that F.O.F. Nos. 1-9 are not supported in the record by competent substantial evidence. Rather, the gist of these exceptions is that the Hearing Officer overlooked or did not give proper weight to evidence that may suggest a contrary finding. It is well settled that where a Hearing Officer's finding of fact is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. I am not at liberty to reject or modify it. See e.g., Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Heifetz v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Sections 120.57(1)(b)10., and 120.68(10), Florida Statutes. Nor may I reweigh the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer. Heifetz, supra. My review of the record shows that the Hearing Officer's F.O.F. Nos. 1-9 are supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. The following summarizes F.O.F. Nos. 1-9 and the competent substantial evidence in the record which supports them. The proposed development on the island has been approved by the City of Naples and involves the refurbishment and expansion of existing Keewaydin Club facilities along with the construction of 42 single family homes within the city's jurisdictional boundaries. (F.O.F. No. 1: App. Remand Ex. 2). The Applicant is limited in its improvement of the Keewaydin Club facilities as follows: Construction must occur within the existing club property boundaries. A maintenance facility, firehouse, helipad and additional tennis courts are to be constructed. In addition, two buildings containing guest units and a building with 21 staff units can be built. Existing buildings can be remodeled to continue in their present functions and the clubhouse can be expanded by an additional 4,400 square feet. (F.O.F. No. 2: Stipulation of Respondents; DER Remand Ex. 2.). Marina expansion has been proposed by the Applicant, along with elevated walkways through jurisdictional wetlands, but are not essential to the proposed development. For purposes of consideration of secondary impacts the hearing on remand assumed that the marina expansion and walkways would be constructed so that the secondary impacts of the potential development could be considered during the current dredge and fill permit review. (F.O.F. No. 3: DER Remand Ex. 2; DER Remand Ex. A at 18-19). The 42 single family homes are planned for specific locations south of the club property. These homes will be on 15,000 square foot lots. It is anticipated that they will be landscaped with native vegetation and that residents will move around the island via golf carts on cart paths. (F.O.F. No. 4: App. Remand Ex. 2 at 1-1, 1-5, 1-16, 1-38, 2-7 to 2-9, and 5-2; App. Remand Ex. 11 at 6; Tr. at 413-15). Because the city has limited the planned development to the 42 residential units and the improvements to the club, both the Department of Natural Resources and South Florida Water Management District have approved permits specifically tailored to this development plan. (F.O.F. No. 5: App. Remand Exh. 2; App. Remand Ex. B at 6-10, App. Remand Ex. 11). The privately owned portion of the island cannot be developed further because of the city's approval conditions for this project. These two conditions are: (1) City Ordinance 89-5843 mandates all of the property in the land options involved with future development must be annexed into the city; and Once the property is annexed, the Applicant will give the city a conservation easement over 2,270 acres. This acreage is to be retained in its natural state and is expected to be maintained as suitable habitat for fish, plants and wildlife. (F.O.F. No. 6: App. Remand Ex. 2 at 1-3, 1-30; App. Remand Ex. 6; App. Remand Ex. 11; App. Remand Ex. A at 11-12). The City of Naples requires the developer to eliminate all septic tanks serving the Keewaydin Club as one if its conditions for approval of the current project. This has the potential to positively impact and improve current water quality on the island. (F.O.F. No. 7: Tr. at 317, 323-24; App. Remand Ex. D at 12; App. Remand Ex. F at 13 and 15; App. Remand Ex. 2). Specific measures have been proposed to minimize development impacts on the wildlife known to inhabit the island. Preservation of the osprey nest zone, upland gopher tortoise habitat, control of wheeled traffic on the beach, use of indirect lighting to avoid disorientation of baby atlantic loggerhead turtles as they hatch from nests, and trapping programs to control the raccoon population are prepared and ready for implementation. (F.O.F. No. 8: App. Remand Ex. 2; DER Remand Ex. A. at 22; DER Remand Ex. 2). The vast number of natural plant species on the island will be protected in designated areas. The preservation has been planned so representatives of species of interest will continue to thrive. (F.O.F. No. 9: App. Remand Ex. F at 16; DER Remand Ex. A at 22; DER Remand Ex. 2; App. Remand Ex. 2 at 1-25, 2-7, 2-16, and 2-17). Since the above findings of fact are supported in the record by competent substantial evidence, I can not disturb these findings of fact. I therefore reject the above noted exceptions. The MSSW Permit and Reasonable Assurance As To Water Quality. Florida Audubon's Exceptions No. 1(C)-1(F), 8(G)(3), 9(A), 9(I)(1)-(3) and 30(D) in whole or part take exception to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law that the applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the project will not cause violations of water quality standards. (F.O.F. Nos. 10-20; Conclusion of Law No. 42). 6/ The gist of these exceptions is that the Department erred in relying on the assumption that in issuing its Management and Storage of Surface Water ("MSSW") permit, the South Florida Water Management District ("SFWMD") properly determined that the surface water management system for the island development provided reasonable assurance that the system would not result in violations of state water quality standards. There is competent substantial evidence in the record supporting the Hearing Officer's finding that the Department did not independently evaluate whether the development's surface water management system provided reasonable assurance that it would not violate state water quality standards. (F.O.F. No. 10; Dentzau, Tr. at 700-701, 712-13). It is therefore necessary to decide whether the Department properly relied on the MSSW permit for reasonable assurances that the surface water management system would not result in water quality violations, or whether the de novo hearing rendered the reliance moot in any event. Before the Department may issue a dredge and fill permit, it must determine that the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the project, when considered with cumulative and secondary impacts, will not cause violations of water quality standards. Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes. See also Conservancy v. A. Vernon Allen Builder, 580 So.2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) and authorities cited therein. 7/ Where development is a secondary impact of a dredge and fill project, and the development will have a related surface water management system, the Department must also determine whether reasonable assurances have been provided that the surface water management system will not cause water quality violations. The first issue presented by this case is whether the Department may properly rely on a water management district's MSSW permit as the needed reasonable assurances, or whether the Department must "look behind" the water management district's MSSW permit and make a separate and independent evaluation of whether the necessary reasonable assurances have been provided. I note that in 1989 the Legislature enacted Ch. 89-279, Section 15, Laws of Florida, which created Section 373.418, Florida Statutes, providing in part that: It is the intent of the Legislature that stormwater management systems be regulated under this part [i.e., Part IV of Chapter 373] incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to Chapters 373 and 403. * * * (3) The department or governing boards may adopt such rules as are necessary to implement the provisions of this part. Such rules shall be consistent with state water policy and shall not allow harm to water resources or be contrary to the policy set forth in s. 373.016. The rules of SFWMD require that surface water management systems not cause violations of state water quality standards. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c), Fla. Admin. Code. Also, State water policy requires that MSSW permits not cause violations of state water quality standards. Rule 17-40.420(3)(a), (b)1.a., Fla. Admin. Code. Although the Department is authorized to issue MSSW permits under section 373.418, it is the intent of Chapter 373 that Department powers be delegated to the water management districts to the greatest extent practicable. Section 373.016(3), Florida Statutes. The Legislature has ,thus established a scheme where strong preference is given to the regulation of surface water management systems by Water management districts through Chapter 373 MSSW permits. 8/ This scheme includes a mechanism in which the Department, the applicant, or a substantially affected person can petition the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission for a determination of the validity of the permit. See Section 373.114, Florida Statutes. If the Department in the context of a Chapter 403 dredge and fill permit evaluation were to second guess and make an independent assessment of whether a surface water management system which had already received a water management district MSSW permit actually provided the necessary reasonable assurances, it could lead to a collateral attack on the validity of the MSSW permit and defeat the Legislative intent expressed in Sections 373.418 and 373.114, Florida Statutes. I therefore conclude that where an MSSW permit issuance by a water management district has become final, the Department may accept the MSSW permit as reasonable assurance that, as to the operation of the system within the scope of the dredge and fill permit, the surface water management system will not cause violations of state water quality standards. Of course, the Department will continue to make an independent determination of whether the remaining aspects of the project, taking into consideration cumulative and secondary impacts, provide the necessary reasonable assurances. I note that in this case the MSSW permit has not yet become final, as it is pending review before the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. 9/ A second issue raised is whether the de novo hearing rendered moot any question as to the propriety of the Department's reliance on the MSSW permit. I note that in the remand hearing in this case expert testimony was introduced to the effect that the development's management and storage of surface water system would not cause violations of state water quality standards. (App. Remand Ex. B, Prefiled Test. of Means at 6-12, 14-17.). Since this proceeding on remand is a de novo determination of the issues on remand, if there was any error by the Department in relying on the MSSW permit, it is moot because the Hearing Officer found that the necessary reasonable assurances were provided based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Since the Hearing Officer's finding that reasonable assurances have been provided is supported in the record by competent substantial evidence, I may not disturb it. Accordingly, the above noted exceptions are rejected. Reasonable Assurances As to Water Quality. Florida Audubon's Exceptions No. 1(C)-(F), 8(D)(2)-8(D)(3) , 8(E)(1), 8(F), 8(G)(1)-8(G)(3), 8(H) and 9(A)-9(K) in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact that the Applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project, including the secondary impacts of the expected development, will not cause violations of water quality standards. (F.O.F. Nos. 10-20). Once again, Florida Audubon's exceptions do not assert the Hearing Officer's findings of fact are not supported in the record by competent substantial evidence, but essentially contend that the Hearing Officer did not give proper weight to what Florida Audubon contends is conflicting evidence. As I noted above, the standard which I must apply in ruling on exceptions to findings of fact is whether the Hearing Officer's findings of fact are supported in the record by competent substantial evidence. Florida Dept. of Corrections; Heifetz; supra. If I find any competent substantial evidence in the record to support a finding of fact I must accept the finding of fact even if there are contrary facts in the record and even if I would have weighed the facts differently. Heifetz, supra. 10/ As noted in Part III(3) above, the Department did not independently evaluate whether the design of the project's surface water management system provided reasonable assurance that the system would not violate state water quality standards. Rather, the Department relied on the issuance of the MSSW permit by the South Florida Water Management District. (F.O.F. No. 10; Dentzau, Tr. at 700-701, 712-713). Florida Audubon suggests that SFWMD did not in fact review the impact of the surface water management system on water quality, and that the Department's reliance on the MSSW permit precludes a finding that the Applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards. I disagree for the reasons stated in Part III(3) above. In particular, I note that the record on remand contains competent substantial evidence that the surface water management system will not result in violations of water quality standards. (App. Remand Ex. B, Prefiled Test. of Means at 6-12, 14-17). This proceeding on remand is a de novo determination of whether reasonable assurances have been provided that the project, taking into consideration the expected development of the island, will not result in violations of water quality standards. Therefore, regardless of whether the Department initially erred in relying on the MSSW permit, any error has been rendered moot by this de novo proceeding on remand in which the Applicant introduced competent substantial evidence that reasonable assurances have been provided that the stormwater management system will not cause violations of water quality standards. As to F.O.F. Nos. 11-20, the following summarizes the findings of fact and the competent substantial evidence in the record supporting them. In its review of the proposed development the Department identified several areas of potential adverse water quality impacts. Specifically, the Department investigated impacts from a potential marina expansion; the creation of all planned cart paths, proposed house pad construction, boardwalk and canoe launches, exempt docks, and beach renourishment. (F.O.F. No. 11: DER Remand Ex. 2; DER Remand Ex. A, Prefiled Test. of Dentzau at 7-9, 11-25; DER Remand Ex. B, Prefiled Test. of Llewellyn at 5-13). The marina expansion, boardwalks, and canoe launches will impact existing jurisdictional mangroves, thereby affecting water quality. If later permitted, however, the Applicant can reasonably minimize such impacts and offset them in a suitable fashion. (F.O.F. No. 12: DER Remand Ex. A, Prefiled Test. of Dentzau at 20-21; DER Remand Ex. 2). 11/ The primary impacts from exempt docks are minimized by the development plan. The secondary potential impacts are negligible. (F.O.F. No. 13: DER Remand Ex. A, Prefiled Test. of Dentzau at 20-21; DER Remand Ex. 2). The cart paths will not be paved. Urban runoff from these surfaces will have an insignificant quantity of pollutants that are accounted for in the surface water management system design. (F.O.F. No. 14: App. Remand Ex. F, Prefiled Test. of McWilliams at 14; Applicant's Remand Ex. B, Prefiled Test. of Means at 6-12, 16; Applicant's Remand Ex. D, Prefiled Test. of Missimer at 11). The secondary impacts from the house pad construction and the urban runoff from associated impervious surfaces are minimal. Nevertheless, they are accounted for in the surface water management system design. (F.O.F. No. 15: Applicant's Remand Ex. 2 at 1-16, 5-2; App. Remand Ex. B, Prefiled Test. of Means at 6-10; App. Remand Ex. D, Prefiled Test. of Missimer at 11-12; App. Remand Ex. F, Prefiled Test. of McWilliams at 13-14). The agreements entered into between the Applicant, the City of Naples, and the Department of Natural Resources prohibit any additional shore hardening. The beach management plan includes periodic beach renourishment. (F.O.F. No. 16: DER Remand Ex. A, Prefiled Test. of Dentzau at 16; App. Remand Ex. 11; App. Remand Ex. E at 10, Prefiled Test. of Stephen at 10; Tr. at 368-369). A review of the surface water management plan presented at the remand hearing reveals that the potential for adverse secondary impacts is significantly limited due to the low density and minimal infrastructure for the proposed development. The 42 new homes will be spread over 430 acres. A series of swales, collection ponds and surface water treatment areas have been designed to minimize the impacts of development on the surface water. The use of fertilizer or pesticides by residents will be strictly limited. (F.O.F. No. 17: App. Remand Ex. B, Prefiled Test. of Means at 6-10; App. Remand Ex. D, Prefiled Test. of Missimer at 11-12; App. Remand Ex. F, Prefiled Test. of McWilliams at 12-19; App. Remand Ex. 6). The surface water management system meets the Department's water quality standards. (F.O.F. No. 18: App. Remand Ex. B, Prefiled Test. of Means at 6-14; App. Remand Ex. 6; Tr. at 185-89, 197-215). Potable water is already conveyed to the island from the city. Once the septic tanks are removed, the overall affect of the planned development on ground water will be negligible. (F.O.F. No. 19: DER Remand Ex. 2; DER Remand Ex. A, Prefiled Test. of Dentzau at 16, 23-24). I conclude that the Hearing Officer's F.O.F. Nos. 10-20 are supported in the record by competent substantial evidence and therefore I will not disturb them. Accordingly, the above noted exceptions are rejected. Reasonable Assurances As to Public Interest Test. Florida Audubon's Exceptions No. 10(A)-10(O)(2) in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact that reasonable assurances have been provided that the proposed project, taking into consideration the cumulative and secondary impacts, is not contrary to the public interest. (F.O.F. Nos. 21-34). As with the previous exceptions, Florida Audubon is essentially arguing that the Hearing Officer improperly weighed the evidence. My task is to determine whether the Hearing Officer's findings of fact are supported in the record by competent substantial evidence. If they are, I may not reject them. The following summarizes F.O.F. Nos. 22-33 and the competent substantial evidence in the record supporting them. All new construction is required to meet flood protection standards even though the owners will not be eligible for flood insurance. Home construction standards take into consideration many of the effects of hurricanes. (F.O.F. No. 22: App. Remand Ex. 2: App. Remand Ex. F at 15). The hurricane evacuation plan has been approved by the city and Collier County emergency management authorities. (F.O.F. No. 23: App. Remand Ex. 2 at Ib, 1-29; App. Remand Ex. A at 17-21). Public funds are protected as the proposed development is not dependent upon federal, state or local funding or insurance. The city has passed an ordinance that requires property owners to acknowledge that the city has no liability for rebuilding any damaged infrastructure or improvements. The monetary risk associated with the development will be borne by the developer and the residents. (F.O.F. No. 24: App. Remand Ex. 2 at 1-3 to 1-8). The 42 single family homes will be located within the island's Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) unit boundaries. The evidence adduced at hearing indicated that the CBRA designation will not be jeopardized by the proposed development. (F.O.F. No. 25: Tr. at 106-7; App. Remand Ex. A at 21-33; App. Remand Ex. 3; App. Remand Ex. 4; App. Remand Ex. E at 16). The proposed development will have negligible secondary impacts on fish and wildlife. The project protects or enhances various fish and wildlife habitats. All wetlands will be preserved. The beach dune system will be improved through removal of exotics and dune restoration. As a result, the interdependence of the estuarine area on the coastal barrier resource will not be adversely affected by the project. (F.O.F. No. 26: DER Remand Ex. A at 15- 16; App. Remand Ex. E at 19; App. Remand Ex. F at 10, 13-14, 15-16; Tr. at 414, 825-26, 829-30). Gopher tortoises will be relocated to an upland preserve on the same island. The removal of exotic plants, the introduction of native herbaceous plants and control of the raccoon population should positively effect the gopher tortoise population. (F.O.F. No. 27: DER Remand Ex. 2; DER Remand Ex. A at 21- 22; App. Remand Ex. F at 15-16; Tr. at 855-60). Indirect lighting and the reduction of raccoons should benefit the atlantic loggerhead turtle population. (F.O.F. No. 28: DER Remand Ex. 2; DER Remand Ex. A at 22; App. Remand Ex. 2). Threatened or endangered plant species on the site include golden leather fern, assorted orchids and bromeliads, golden polypody fern, shoestring fern and prickly pear cactus. Representatives of these species will be protected in preserve areas, according to conditions in the development plan approved by the city and conditions established in other permits. (F.O.F. No. 29: DER Remand Ex. 2; DER Remand Ex. A at 22; App. Remand Ex. F at 16). The proposed project preserves all identified habitats which contribute to marine productivity. Low density development and other limitations already placed on the project were designed to minimize the adverse impacts on fishing and marine productivity. Recreational values will be enhanced by the project because of the proposed canoe launches and habitat restoration. (F.O.F. No. 30: App. Remand Ex. F at 16). The development is permanent in nature. Design limitations on the project, existing permit conditions and the low density aspect of the development combine to assure that the project has limited adverse impacts. (F.O.F. No. 31: App. Remand Ex. 2; App. Remand Ex. F at 17-18; Tr. at 872-73). There will be no adverse impacts on historical or archaeological resources. The Caloosa Indian Midden located on the property is to be preserved undisturbed. The Keewaydin Club Lodge is a designated structure on the National Historical Register and will be maintained as a historical building. (F.O.F. No. 32: DER Remand Ex. 2; DER Remand Ex. A at 22; App. Remand Ex. A at 16-17). Except for the creation of 42 single home residencies for people willing to spend a million dollars for a home on an island with access only by boat or helicopter and all monetary risk for infrastructure and improvements damaged by any cause, the current condition of the island will not be changed significantly. All high quality resources and their functions have been preserved by project design. (F.O.F. No. 33: App. Remand Ex. F at 17-18; Tr. at 872-73). The above findings of fact which are supported in the record by competent substantial evidence support the Hearing Officer's F.O.F. No. 21 that the project will not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. Since the above noted findings of fact are supported in the record by competent substantial evidence, I shall not disturb them and the above noted exceptions are therefore rejected. However, as to the Hearing Officer's "finding" that the project is not contrary to the public interest, this is ultimately a conclusion of law for which I have the final authority and responsibility to determine. 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Depart. of Environmental Regulation, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. den., 562 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1990); Harloff v. City of Sarasota, 575 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), rev. den. 583 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 1991). Although the factors found in the Hearing Officer's F.O.F. Nos. 26-30 help alleviate the adverse impacts of the project, when I balance the public interest criteria I conclude that the project would be contrary to the public interest without the mitigation offered by the preservation conservation easement to be placed over 2,270 acres. When I take the mitigation into consideration, I conclude that the project, taking into consideration the cumulative and secondary impacts, is not contrary to the public interest. Barrier Island -- Executive Order 81-105 and Designation Under The Federal Coastal Barrier Island Resources Act (CBRA). Florida Audubon's Exceptions No. 1(G), 3(A)-3(C), 5(A), 8(D)(1), 8(E)(1), 9(A)(3), 9(B)-9(D), 10(E)(1) (3), 10(J) 10(N)(3), 17 (A)-17(D), 21, 22, 24 and 25 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact that the federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) designation of Keewaydin Island will not be jeopardized by the proposed development (F.O.F. No. 25) and to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that the development is not prevented by Governor Graham's Executive Order No. 81-105. (C.O.L. No. 43). My review of the record shows that competent substantial evidence was admitted supporting the fact that Keewaydin Island's Coastal Barrier Resource System ("CBRS") unit designation does not prohibit the development of Keewaydin Island. It just precludes federal funds to facilitate such development. Therefore, that development would not jeopardize the CBRS unit designation. (App. Remand Ex. 3; App. Remand Ex. 4; App. Remand Ex. A at 21-23; App. Remand Ex. E at 16; Tr. at 106-107) Accordingly, I shall not disturb this finding of fact. Although I note that Executive Order No. 81-105 may have some weight in the balancing of the public interest criteria under Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, I concur with the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Executive Order No. 81-105 does not per se preclude the development of coastal barrier islands where government funds will not be used to create the infrastructure that promotes development on the barrier island. In view of the above, the above noted exceptions are rejected. Exceptions Lacking Particularity. Florida Audubon Exceptions No. 6 and 7 lack sufficient particularity. Rule 17-103.200(1), Fla. Admin. Code, provides in part: Exceptions shall state with particularity the basis for asserting that the Hearing Officer erred in making or omitting specific findings of fact, conclusions of law, or a recommendation ... The reason for the above requirement is clear. It is impossible for the parties to respond, or for me to rule, when the basis for a purported error is not clearly stated. Exceptions No. 6 and 7 fail to state how the Hearing Officer has erred in a finding of fact, conclusion of law, or recommendation. Such exceptions do not comply with Rule 17-103.200(1), Fla. Admin. Code, and therefore must be rejected. For this reason, I reject these exceptions. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Hearing Officer's conclusions of law in both the First Recommended Order and the Recommended Order As To Matters On Remand are accepted except as otherwise noted in either this Final Order After Remand or the First Final Order as modified by the court's opinion in Conservancy v. A. Vernon Allen, Builder, supra. Scope of Remand. Florida Audubon's Exceptions No. 11-14 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law No. 36-39. The gist of these exceptions is that the Hearing Officer misconstrued the scope of the remand and consequently lacked jurisdiction. There is no merit in the contention that the Hearing Officer lacked jurisdiction. Jurisdiction was conferred by the court's mandate that the matter be remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. See Conservancy v. A. Vernon Allen Builder, 580 So.2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Nor do I agree that the Hearing Officer misconstrued the scope of remand. The opinion of First District Court of Appeal stated: In the instant case, we disagree with appellee that the contemplated development of 75 estate homes is speculative and is not closely linked or causally related to the proposed dredging and filling. We perceive there to be little difference between the Department's aforestated need to "consider what will be at the end of the bridge or road," and the necessity here to consider what will be at the end of the pipeline, especially when the evidence, proffered or admitted, suggests that the development enabled by the dredge and fill permit could have devastating environmental impacts. Such evidence would be highly relevant to the Department's consideration of whether the applicant has carried its burden of giving reasonable assurances under section 403.918 that water quality standards will not be violated and the project is not contrary to the public interest. Thus, the Department's consideration of the proposed development solely in relation to the design of the pipeline system itself neglected the necessity in this case to consider potential secondary impacts. Consequently, it was error for the Hearing Officer to exclude the evidence proffered by appellants for the reasons set forth in her recommended order. Accordingly, this cause must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings and re-evaluation of the proffered evidence in a manner consistent with this opinion. 12/ Conservancy v. A. Vernon Allen Builder, 580 So.2d at 779 (quoting McCormick v. City of Jacksonville, (12 FALR 980, 981 (DER Final Order, Jan. 22, 1990); footnote omitted). I conclude that the Hearing Officer properly construed the scope of remand to require the consideration of "the secondary impacts associated with the development of Key Island, which the Court determined were closely linked and causally related to the proposed permit." (R.O.R., C.O.L. No. 37) I also note that this administrative proceeding on remand is a de novo determination of the issue of the secondary impacts, and that Florida Audubon has fully participated and submitted testimony and evidence on the issue of the secondary impacts. I therefore conclude that the administrative hearing fully complied with the scope of remand, and accordingly reject the above noted exceptions. Reasonable Assurances As To Water Quality. Exceptions No. 14, 15(A)-15(C), 16, 18, 24 and 30(D) in whole or part take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law that reasonable assurances have been provided that the project and its cumulative and secondary impacts will not cause violations of water quality standards. (C.O.L. Nos. 40, 41, 42). Based on the Hearing Officer's findings of fact which I have accepted, I conclude that the project, taking into consideration cumulative and secondary impacts, provides reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. I therefore reject the above noted exceptions. Reasonable Assurances As To The Public Interest Test. Florida Audubon's Exceptions No. 15(A)-15(C), 16, 17, 18, and 21-24 take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law that reasonable assurance has been provided that the project together with its cumulative and secondary impacts are not contrary to the public interest. (C.O.L. No. 43) As I noted above, the determination of whether reasonable assurances have been provided as to the public interest test is ultimately a conclusion of law for which I have the final authority and responsibility to determine. 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Depart. of Environmental Regulation, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. den., 562 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1990). Based on the Hearing Officer's findings of fact which I have accepted, I conclude that the project, taking into consideration the cumulative and secondary impacts and the offered mitigation of the preservation conservation easement over 2,270 acres, has provided reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Therefore the above noted exceptions are rejected. Barrier Island -- Executive Order 81-105 and Designation Under The Federal Coastal Barrier Island Resources Act (CBRA). Florida Audubon's Exceptions No. 17(A)-(D), 21, 22, 24 and 25 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law that Executive Order No. 81-105 and the Federal Coastal Barrier Island Resource Act do not preclude the proposed development on Keewaydin Island. Based on the Hearing Officer's findings of fact which I have accepted, and for the reasons stated in Part III(6) above, I concur with the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law and reject the above noted exceptions. Evidentiary Issues Official Recognition of Hurricane Andrew and Amendment to Rule 28-21.003 Florida Audubon's Exceptions No. 25, 30(A)-30(C) do not take exception to any specific finding of fact or conclusion of law. Rule 17-103.200(1) requires rulings only to exceptions to findings of fact, conclusions of law or recommendations. Although lacking in specificity, these exceptions apparently assert that the Hearing Officer erred in an implied conclusion of law when she declined to take official recognition of (1) an amendment to Department of Natural Resources Rule 18-21.003 relating to leases or consent to uses of sovereign submerged lands incident to the development of undeveloped coastal barrier islands, and (2) the effects of Hurricane Andrew on Keewaydin Island. The Hearing Officer, relying on the authority of Collier Medical Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 462 So.2d 83, 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), denied these motions on the ground that the evidentiary hearing had ended. I note that the decision to give official recognition, like judicial notice, lies in the discretion of the Hearing Officer. See ., Huff v. State, 495 So.2d 145, 151 (Fla. 1986)("It is upon the wisdom and discretion of the judges of our courts that the doctrine of judicial notice must rest."). Even assuming that the Hearing Officer's decision to deny official recognition is an implied conclusion of law to which an exception is appropriately made, I cannot say that I believe the Hearing Officer abused her discretion in declining to take the requested official recognition. Florida Audubon has suggested no competent substantial evidence in the record which would be a basis for determining whether the amended Rule 18-21.003 would be applicable to the proposed development on Keewaydin Island. Furthermore, even if the rule was applicable to Keewaydin Island, the effect of the rule would be relevant to the necessary permit, easement or consent to use from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The Department's permit does not remove the applicant's need for a Board of Trustees permit over sovereign submerged lands. 13/ As to the request for official recognition of Hurricane Andrew, it cannot be said that it is generally known and not subject to dispute how Hurricane Andrew would have effected Keewaydin Island if the proposed project has been in place. Therefore official recognition of Hurricane Andrew is neither appropriate nor material for the purposes sought by Florida Audubon. Accordingly, I conclude that the Hearing Officer did not abuse her discretion in denying official recognition. I therefore reject the above noted exceptions. Official Recognition of Facts In the MSSW Permit Proceeding Before SFWMD. Florida Audubon's Exception No. 27, although lacking in specificity, appears to be taking exception to the Hearing Officer's implicit denial of taking official recognition of facts in the administrative proceedings of another case, i.e., the MSSW permit proceedings before the SFWMD. Apparently Florida Audubon is contending that the Hearing Officer erred in not taking official recognition of Florida Audubon's assertion that the SFWMD did not consider impacts on water quality when it issued the MSSW permit. As I noted in my discussion in Parts III(3) and III(4) above, the Department may properly rely on the issuance of an MSSW permit as reasonable assurance that the surface water management system will not cause violations of water quality standards. Regardless of whether the SFWMD properly considered water quality impacts when it issued the MSSW permit, in this case the issue is moot because a de novo proceeding was held where the record contains competent substantial evidence that the surface water management system provides reasonable assurance that the system will not cause violations of water quality standards. This exception is therefore rejected. Miscellaneous Exceptions. Exception 13 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's C.O.L. No. 38 describing the nature of the proffers made in the previous hearing. Since the hearing on remand was a de novo hearing on the issue of secondary impacts of the island development in which Florida Audubon presented all of its evidence related to the issue, I find no error that is relevant or material to this proceeding. Exception 13 is therefore rejected. Exception 14 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's C.O.L. No. 39 holding that the Department acted in good faith in its pre-hearing review of the information regarding the development. Once again, since the hearing was a de novo proceeding to establish the secondary impacts of the development I find no relevant or material error. Exception 14 is therefore rejected. Exceptions No. 19(A)-19(C) take exception to the Hearing Officer's C.O.L. No. 45, which concluded that the Department witnesses who disagreed with the proposed project did not apply the tests set forth in the statutes as did the Department witnesses who actually made the initial determination of whether the permit should issue. This exception also looses sight of the fact that this remand proceeding is a de novo determination of the facts. Florida Audubon presented witnesses who opposed the permit, and the Applicant presented witnesses and evidence in favor of the permit. The Department presented witnesses as to the Department's initial determination of the matter. I find no error and reject the exception. Exceptions 20(A) to 20(C) taking exception to the Hearing Officer's recommendations. These exceptions essentially are attacks on the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law as to reasonable assurances. The exceptions are denied for the same reasons stated in Parts III(3), (4) and (5) and IV(2) and (3). Exceptions 28 and 29 take exception to the Hearing Officer's acceptance of proposed findings of fact in the proposed recommended orders of the Applicant and the Department. These exceptions are redundant and are rejected for the same reasons stated in Parts III and IV(1)-(5) above.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered approving Respondent Builders' dredge and fill permit in DER File No. 111486645 filed August 31, 1988, subject to the following modifications: Specific condition number 6 should be amended to read: 6. Dredging shall be done by mechanical means (no hydraulic dredging) as there does not appear to be an appropriate area for discharge retention available. No dredging shall be allowed during the weeks of July 1st through September 30th of any year. If rock is encountered during the dredging activity along the proposed pipeline corridor, the rock is to be punctured by mechanical means. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Rulings on the proposed findings of fact filed by Petitioners are addressed as follows: Accept that John Remington holds the option on the property. See HO #1. Reject the rest of paragraph 1 as contrary to fact. See HO #6. Accept the description of the project locale. See HO #7. The rest is rejected as irrelevant. Outside scope of hearing. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #7. Rejected. Irrelevant. Outside scope of hearing. Rejected. Irrelevant. Outside scope of hearing. Rejected. Irrelevant. Outside scope of hearing. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Argumentative. Rejected. Improper summary. Irrelevant. Accepted. See Ho #2. Accepted. See Preliminary Matters. Rejected. Improper summary. Rejected. Immaterial. Accepted. Rejejcted. Improper summary. Accepted. Rejected. Immaterial. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Beyond the reasonable assurances standards. Accepted as a reasonable possibility. See HO #11. Accept the first sentence. See HO #11. The rest is rejected as argumentative. Accept as a fact summary. The assumption portion is rejected as argumentative. Rejected. Premature analysis of future sewer treatment plant permit. Accept first sentence. The rest is rejected as argumentative and beyond scope of hearing. Accepted. Accepted to the point that such information could be known, based upon the methods used to form the opinion. Rejected. Argumentative. Respondent Builders' proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #7 and #9. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #21. Rejected, except that there is no evidence of scour activity. There was insufficient evidence for the conclusion that the pass is very stable. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. Rejected. Premature in this proceeding. Accepted. See HO #16 and #17. Accepted that reasonable assurances provided. See HO #11 and #16. Accepted. See HO #33. Accepted. See HO #13 through #16. Accepted. See HO #16 and #17. Accepted. Rejected. Repetitive. Accepted. See HO #31. Accepted. See HO #18. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #21 and #29. Accepted. See HO #23-#25. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #21, #22 and #29. Accepted. See HO #30. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent DER's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #4 and HO #7. Accepted. See HO #5. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #16. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #8. Accepted. Rejected. Conclusionary. See HO #21 and #29. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #23. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #22. Accepted. See HO #22. Accepted. See HO #16. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #13. Rejected. Speculative. Accepted. See HO #16. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Rejected. Outside of scope of hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Z. Fleming, Esquire 620 Ingraham Building 25 Southeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Terry E. Lewis, Esquire Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire MESSER VICKERS CAPARELLO FRENCH AND MADSEN Suite 301 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Richard Grosso, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether 1044PVB, LLC (“Applicant”), is entitled to Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) No. IND-109-143282-1 from the St. Johns River Water Management District (“District”), authorizing the construction of a surface water management system to serve a proposed residential development in St. Johns County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Nancy Condron is a resident and landowner in St. Johns County. Her residence is located across Ponte Vedra Boulevard from the Project. Petitioner uses the nearby Guana River Wildlife Management Area for nature-based recreation, including hiking and bird-watching. Applicant is a foreign limited liability company and the applicant for the ERP at issue in this case. The District is an independent special district granted powers and assigned duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including powers and duties related to the regulation of construction activities in wetlands. The Project is within the boundaries of the District. The Project Site The Project site is 17.13 acres located at 1044 Ponte Vedra Boulevard in St. Johns County, Florida. The site currently consists of forested lands on the east and west and pasture areas in the middle. There is an existing trail road that runs the length of the property and a small residence. The site has four small ponds excavated as watering holes, ranging in size from 0.04 to 0.24 acres. There are 4.41 acres of wetlands and other surface waters on the site. There is a 3.49-acre area of mixed forested wetland on the site that continues offsite to the south and west. There are also three isolated wetlands on the site, each less than a half-acre in size. The wetland system adjacent to the Project site flows to the Guana River. The Guana River is a freshwater, Class III waterbody. It is an Outstanding Florida Water, but has been designated by the Department of Environmental Protection as impaired for nutrients. The site is not used by threatened or endangered species for feeding, nesting, or breeding. The Project The proposed Project is a 22-lot, single-family subdivision. The proposed surface water management system for the Project includes curb and gutter paved roadways, storm inlets, concrete pipes, vegetated natural buffers, treatment swales, and a wet detention stormwater pond. The wet detention stormwater pond would discharge into adjacent wetlands that flow to the Guana River. Wetlands The point of discharge from the Project’s stormwater management system is not in the designated Outstanding Florida Water. Applicant proposes to fill the four ponds and the three isolated wetlands. Applicant also proposes to fill 0.28 acres of the larger wetland. The Project includes a number of upland buffers that are a minimum of 15 feet in width and average of 25 feet in width. These buffers are intended to prevent potential adverse secondary impacts to adjacent wetlands. All wetland impacts and mitigation were assessed using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-345. The UMAM assessment takes into consideration the location and landscape support, water environment, and community structure of the wetlands to be impacted. The District also considers the condition, hydrologic connection, uniqueness, location, and the fish and wildlife utilization of the wetlands and other surface waters. The District did not require mitigation for filling the artificial ponds. The District also did not require mitigation for filling the isolated wetlands because each is less than a half-acre in size. As mitigation for filling 0.28 acres of the larger wetland, Applicant would purchase 0.25 mitigation bank credits from the St. Marks Pond Mitigation Bank. The St. Marks Pond Mitigation Bank is located in the same drainage basin as the wetland area that would be filled. The District determined that purchasing the mitigation bank credits would offset the functional loss associated with filling part of the wetland. Two areas on the site where no upland buffers are proposed were assessed for secondary impacts to wetlands in the UMAM evaluation. The mitigation bank credits proposed for the Project would offset all of the adverse, direct, and secondary impacts to wetlands or surface waters associated with this Project. Because direct and secondary impacts would be fully mitigated, the Project would not cause cumulative impacts. Water Quantity A majority of the Project’s stormwater runoff would be conveyed to the wet detention pond. The wet detention pond provides water quantity protection by attenuating the post- development peak rate of discharge. Applicant modeled the pre-development peak rate of discharge and the post-development peak rate of discharge. The modeling indicated that the post-development peak rate of discharge will not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. Section 3.3 of the Applicant's Handbook, Volume II, prohibits a reduction in the 10-year or 100-year floodplain for projects with an upstream drainage basin of five square miles or greater. The proposed Project has an upstream drainage basin of 4.6 square miles, so this criterion is not applicable. Applicant showed the Project would increase offsite flood elevations by only 0.01 feet, which is negligible. The Project would not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands. Water Quality Water quality would be managed in the Project through a combination of wet detention pond, swales, and vegetative natural buffers (“VNBs”). The wet detention pond would treat a majority of the runoff from the Project. Section 8 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume II, contains presumptive criteria for the design of a wet detention pond. The proposed wet detention pond meets the presumptive criteria. Therefore, the detention pond is presumed to provide reasonable assurance that the water quality of receiving waters will be protected. Applicant is proposing to construct swales at the back of Lots 20, 21, and 22 to treat runoff by infiltration. Section 9 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume II, contains presumptive criteria for swale system design and performance. The Project meets the presumptive criteria for swales. Applicant is proposing VNBs on Lots 1 through 14. The use of VNBs is a commonly-used best management practice accepted by the District for treating stormwater runoff. Like swales, VNBs treat runoff by infiltration. Stormwater runoff from the backyards of Lots 1 through 14 would drain to the VNBs. On some of these lots, stormwater runoff from the front yards, side yards, and rooftops would also drain to the VNBs. The lots would be graded so that runoff would sheet flow to the VNBs to maximize their treatment function. The VNBs would have native soils and plants. The VNBs would have Type A soils, which are well-drained soils that provide the highest rate of infiltration and the most permeability. Petitioner contends that, because soil borings were not taken at the location of the VNBs, reasonable assurance was not provided that the VNBs would function as proposed. However, Petitioner did not show that the soils at the VNB locations were unsuitable soils. In addition, Applicant agreed to use Type A soils in the VNBs. Therefore, reasonable assurance that the VNBs would have suitable soils was provided by Applicant. Petitioner referred to a draft rule to support her contention that the proposed VNBs are not properly designed, but the draft rule has no controlling effect and is hearsay. The Applicant’s Handbook does not contain presumptive criteria for VNBs. Applicant demonstrated that the VNBs would infiltrate 80 percent of the runoff from a three-year, one-hour storm event, which is the same treatment efficiency the District requires when swales are used. Reasonable assurance was provided that the VNBs would function as proposed. Because the Project would discharge to wetlands that flow to the Guana River, a waterbody impaired by nutrients, section 2.2 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume II, requires Applicant to demonstrate there would be a net improvement in water quality with respect to nutrients. Applicant performed a pollutant loading analysis using the BMPTRAINS model. The BMPTRAINS model is a generally-accepted tool used by stormwater engineers for this purpose. The BMPTRAINS model incorporates the information about the pre- and post-development conditions associated with land use and impervious area. The model accounts for site-specific conditions, including the elevation of the groundwater table and storage capacity of the soil. The design of the surface water management system is then incorporated into the model to estimate the pollutant removal efficiency and estimate the average annual pollutant load that will leave the site. Applicant’s BMPTRAINS modeling indicated that the average annual post-development loading for total nitrogen and total phosphorus would be substantially less than the pre- development loading for those nutrients. Therefore, Applicant demonstrated the Project would result in a net improvement. Operation & Maintenance The Ponte Vedra Beach Preserve Homeowners Association would be the entity responsible for operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system. The wet detention pond, swales, and VNBs would be located within an easement and maintained by the homeowner’s association. Applicant and the Ponte Vedra Beach Preserve Homeowners Association have the ability to accept responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the Project. Public Interest An applicant for an ERP must demonstrate that a proposed project affecting wetlands and other surface waters would not be contrary to the public interest. This determination is made by balancing seven factors found in section 10.2.3(a) through (g) of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I. Public interest factor (a) is whether the regulated activity will adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare, or the property of others. There is no aspect of the Project that would affect public health, safety, or welfare, except the potential for flooding. Reasonable assurance was provided by Applicant that the Project would not cause flooding. Factor (b) is whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats. The mitigation bank credits offset all of the potential adverse impacts that the proposed project would have on the conservation of fish and wildlife. Factor (c) is whether the regulated activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The parties stipulated that the Project will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The record evidence shows the Project will not adversely affect the flow of water. Factor (d) is whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The Project would not affect fishing or recreational values in the vicinity. The mitigation bank credits offset all of the potential adverse impacts the proposed project would have on marine productivity in the vicinity. Factor (e) is whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature. The activities are of a permanent nature. The mitigation is also permanent. Factor (f) is whether the regulated activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources. The Project will have no effect on historical and archaeological resources. Factor (g) is the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity. The relatively small loss of functional value would be offset by the proposed mitigation. Considering and balancing these seven factors, the Project would not be contrary to the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of Environmental Resource Permit No. IND-109-143282-1 to 1044PVB, LLC, with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report dated April 11, 2016. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen C. Ferguson, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 (eServed) Jane West, Esquire Josh Smith, Esquire Jane West Law, P.L. 6277 A1A South, Suite 101 St. Augustine, Florida 32080 (eServed) Eric Olsen, Esquire Amelia A. Savage, Esquire Hopping, Green and Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Ann B. Shortelle, Ph.D., Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Department should grant a permit to IMCF to mine and ultimately reclaim 145 acres of wetlands located primarily in Section 14, Township 31S, Range 23E, Polk County, Florida ("Section 14 Area") on the western edge of a larger wetlands system known as "Hookers Prairie."
Findings Of Fact Background and Procedural History On July 9, 1987, IMCF filed an application with the Department for a permit to mine phosphate rock from and then reclaim the Section 14 Area. The Section 14 Area is owned by IMCF. On December 2, 1987, in response to a determination of incompleteness issued by the Department, IMCF supplied additional information which supplemented and modified the original application. The application as augmented and modified was determined to be complete by the Department on December 7, 1987. Department representatives carried out onsite inspections of the Section 14 Area on September 22 and October 9, 14, and 19, 1987, and issued a written permit application appraisal. Based upon the information contained in the application and on the site visits, the Department determined to issue the requested permit to IMCF subject to certain draft permit conditions. The Department directed IMCF to publish notice of the Department's intent to issue the permit. The Department's notice of intent to issue was published in the Lakeland Ledger, a newspaper of general circulation in the location of the Section 14 Area on March 15, 1988. Petitioners objected to the Department's proposed issuance of the permit by filing their Petition to Intervene and Request for Formal Hearing with the Department on April 7, 1988. Petitioners have standing to intervene in this proceeding and participate as parties for the purpose of objecting to the issuance of the subject permit. Description of Proposed Mining Project The wetlands that make up the Section 14 Area are part of a larger 162 acre project area proposed to be mined and reclaimed by IMCF. This mining area is located to the south of the eastern portion of Bradley Junction, a small residential community. The Section 14 Area wetlands make up 131 acres of the overall project area. The remaining 31 acres of uplands involved in the proposed mining project are not subject to Department permitting requirements. IMCF has all necessary permits and approvals to gain access to the upland areas to carry out mining operations. These uplands areas are located primarily in the northernmost part of the project area directly abutting the location of certain residences and churches in eastern Bradley Junction. The jurisdictional wetlands in the Section 14 Area are located no closer than 450 feet from a residential structure in Bradley Junction. Most of the wetlands in the Section 14 Area are substantially farther away from the Bradley Junction residences. The initial step in the mining process will be to construct a ditch and berm system around the Section 14 Area. This ditch and berm system will effectively segregate the mining area from adjacent wetland areas that are to remain undisturbed. Approximately 99 acres of the Section 14 Area wetlands will actually be mined; the remaining 32 acres will be disturbed by the construction of the ditch and berm system. Following the construction of the ditch and berm, land clearing will take place. Once land clearing is completed, mining operations will commence. In phosphate mining operations, large, electrically-powered draglines are used. The dragline first removes and casts aside the "overburden" which is the earthen material that over lies the "matrix." The matrix is the geologic deposit that contains phosphate rock. The dragline extracts the matrix and places it into nearby pits where high- pressure waterguns are used to create a slurry of the matrix material. This slurry is then pumped to the beneficiation facility several miles distant from the mining operations where the matrix slurry is processed to extract the phosphate rock. The matrix is composed primarily of three major components: phosphate rock, sand, and clay. In the beneficiation process, the phosphate rock is separated from the other two components. Residual clays are then pumped to large settling areas where the clays are allowed to settle and consolidate prior to reclamation. No clay settling area is proposed to be located in the Section 14 Area. The sand "tailings" that are generated in the beneficiation process are pumped back to mined areas for use in reclamation programs. Sand tailings will be used in the reclamation proposed for the Section 14 Area. IMCF proposes to initially carry out ditching and berming activities in the Section 14 Area. The central and southern portion of the project area is planned to be mined during the period from July 1989 and June 1990. The dragline will then mine an area to the west outside of the project area. The dragline will return to mine the northern portion of the project area in May 1991. Actual mining operations in the northern portions of the Section 14 Area wetlands and the uplands near Bradley Junction residences will occur over approximately a seven-month period and the dragline will depart the area in December 1991. There are approximately 800,000 tons of phosphate rock underlying the Section 14 Area wetlands. After extraction and beneficiation, this rock will be used for the production of phosphate fertilizer or other phosphate-based products. Project Modifications IMCF has agreed to the following modifications to the Section 14 Area mining and reclamation project as originally proposed in July 1987: The southern boundary of the Section 14 Area has been moved to avoid encroachment on a small stream channel in the upper reaches of the South Prong of the Alafia River, the outlet from Hookers Prairie. The project has been modified to conform to setback requirements recently adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Polk County. Under the revised setback requirements, the edge of a mine cut may come no closer than 100 feet from the IMCF property boundary or 250 feet from an occupied residence, whichever distance is greater. In response to concerns about noise and lights associated with mining operations, IMCF has agreed to restrict the hours of mining operations. Mining operations will not take place during the period from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. when the dragline cab is located within 700 feet of a residence. In addition, mining operations will be suspended on Sundays during the period from 7:00 a.m. through 3:00 p.m. when a dragline cab is located within 700 feet of any place of worship in the Bradley Junction community. The Polk County Mining Ordinance requires that either a berm or a wire fence be constructed on the perimeter operations to limit unauthorized access. IMCF has agreed to construct both a berm and a solid wooden fence, at least six feet high, along the IMCF property boundaries adjacent to residences located in the Bradley Junction community. IMCF has agreed to expedite the reclamation of areas mined adjacent to residences in the Bradley Junction community. The area encompassing the first mine cut closest to the residences (a distance of 250 to 300 feet) will be recontoured and revegetated within 90 days following completion of mining in the area. The area encompassing the first two mine cuts (a distance of 500 to 600 feet) will be recontoured and revegetated within six (6) months following completion of mining in the area. Type, Nature and Function of Section 14 Area Wetlands The Section 14 Area is composed of approximately 127 acres of herbaceous (shrubby) wetlands and approximately 4 acres of young hardwood (forested) wetlands. Western Hookers Prairie, including the Section 14 Area, has been adversely impacted by land use activities over the last several decades. Parts of the area have been drained and cleared to accommodate agricultural uses. The resulting widely fluctuating water levels have induced the extensive growth of what the Department considers to be undesirable "nuisance species" such as cattails and primrose willow, in these areas. Other areas, especially in the southern portion of the Section 14 Area, contain some relatively diverse herbaceous wetland systems. The Section 14 Area also has been adversely impacted to some extent by emergency releases of phosphogypsum and acidic process wastewater generated by the chemical manufacture of phosphate-based fertilizer. Such spills occurred in the 1950s and 1960s and resulted in the deposition of high levels of phosphorous and fluoride in western Hookers Prairie. However, the Section 14 area is less affected than eastern parts of the Western Prairie due to a natural slight rise in elevation along the eastern edge of Section 14, causing a natural flow of water containing the contaminants generally south around Section 14. Wetland systems, in general, can perform certain valuable ecological functions. These functions include: nutrient retention/removal, sediment trapping, flood storage desynchronization, groundwater recharge, food chain support, wildlife habitat, and recreation. Certain wetland systems also serve a shoreline protective/wave dissipation function but that function is not relevant to herbaceous wetland systems like the Section 14 Area that are not adjacent to open water. Because of the nature of the Section 14 Area and the stresses previously imposed upon it, its ability to perform wetland functions has been reduced. The nutrient retention/removal function refers to the ability of the vegetation in wetland systems to remove excess nutrients from water. The Section 14 Area does not perform a significant nutrient retention/removal function. The available data indicate that waters leaving western Hookers Prairie at its outlet to the South Prong of the Alafia River contain more nutrients on balance than do waters entering the system. It is not uncommon for wetlands that are in headwaters of a water system to be net exporters of nutrients. In addition, in this particular area, the historical spills of phosphogypsum and acidic process wastewater have overloaded the sediments in the area with nutrients. The sediment trapping function refers to the ability of wetland systems to filter sediment (suspended particulate matter) from water as it travels through the wetland area. The Section 14 Area performs a reduced sediment trapping function. Although some of the water entering the Section 14 Area comes from Whiskey Store Creek to the north, some of the water entering Section 14 has already traveled relatively long distances through the rest of western Hookers Prairie so that most of the water entering the Section 14 Area does not contain high levels of sediments. As more and more parts are excised for phosphate mining, the importance of the sediment trapping function of the remaining portions, even Section 14, increases, at least until reclamation projects succeed. See "J. Cumulative Impact," below. The flood storage/desynchronization function refers to the ability of a wetland system to store rain water generated during storm events and then to release this water gradually, thus reducing the likelihood of downstream flooding. Hookers Prairie, as a whole, does serve a valuable flood storage/desynchronization function. The approximately 130 acres involved in the Section 14 project area only amount to three to four percent of the overall water storage capacity in the affected area. But the Hookers Prairie wetlands have an approximately two foot thick layer of peat that acts as a sponge to absorb water during inundation and slowly release the stored water over time. It could be misleading to compare the storage of wetland to other water storage acreage on an acre for acre basis. Again, as more and more parts of the Prairie are excised for mining, the importance of the remaining areas increases, at least until reclamation projects succeed. IMCF did not give reasonable assurances as to the cumulative impact of the loss of Section 14 and the other areas under permit on the water storage capacity of the catchment area. See "J. Cumulative Impact," below. The ground water recharge function of wetlands refers to those situations in which a wetland is connected to an underlying groundwater aquifer system in such a way that surface water flows into the wetland system and then down into the underlying aquifer system. The underlying aquifer system is thus "recharged" by the infusion of surface water through the wetland system. The Section 14 Area does not perform any significant groundwater recharge function. Hookers Prairie, including the Section 14 Area, is a topographic depression. Therefore, water can flow out of the uppermost aquifer system (known as the surficial aquifer) into the wetlands, but the reverse is not true. Furthermore, the water in the wetland area cannot move down into lower aquifer systems (such as the intermediate aquifer or the Floridian aquifer) because of the existence of geologic confining layers that underly the Section 14 Area and inhibit vertical groundwater flow. The food chain support function refers to the ability of a wetland to produce organisms or biological material that is used as food by other organisms either in the wetland itself or in surface water areas downstream of the wetland system. The Section 14 Area performs some food chain support functions. Food chain support can be performed in three ways. First, dissolved nutrients, such as phosphorous and nitrogen, can be released into the water. Because of the prior spills into Hookers Prairie, the area is already discharging nutrients in amounts that are normally considered to be high. The second mechanism for performing food chain support is the physical flushing of small aquatic organisms downstream to feed the fish or other larger aquatic organisms. Studies carried out by the United States Environmental Protection Agency indicate that the small organisms found in the downstream reaches of the South Prong of the Alafia River do not appear to be similar to those found at the point of discharge from Hookers Prairie. These data indicate that Hookers Prairie produces and releases this type of food chain support but that its direct impact does not extend significantly into the southern reaches of the South Prong of the Alafia River, as compared to the total production from other tributaries of the river. The third type of food chain support is the release of detrital material (partially decomposed vegetation). Detrital material generated in much of Hookers Prairie is likely to be retained in the Prairie because of the sediment/trapping filtration function discussed above in Finding No. 17(b). However, being adjacent to the outflow from the Prairie to the South Prong, Section 14 could be expected to deliver a larger share of detrital material than the portions of the Prairie further east. The Section 14 Area provides a wildlife habitat function although it does not appear to serve as diverse a group of wildlife as is served by the eastern portion of Hookers Prairie. The Section 14 Area is not utilized for recreational purposes. It is densely vegetated so that access by man is difficult. There are no open water areas that could be used for hunting or fishing. Mitigation IMCF proposes to mitigate the temporary loss of function caused by the mining of the Section 14 Area by reclaiming the area following the completion of mining operations. The first step in reclamation will be the pumping of sand tailings back into the project area to create a land surface at approximately the original grade. The previously moved overburden material will then be spread and recontoured. Stockpiled organic muck material will then be spread over the reclamation area to provide a nutrient source to support plant growth. Department representatives will review and approve the final contours to assure that they are similar to those found in the original natural environment. Following completion of the contouring, the portion of the project area that will be reclaimed as a wetland will be inundated with water and then revegetated with desirable wetland species. The reclamation of the Section 14 Area will be subject to extensive monitoring by IMCF. This monitoring will involve short- and long-term vegetation monitoring and water quality monitoring. The results of this monitoring will be submitted to the Department, and the project will not be released from regulatory scrutiny until certain success criteria are met. During the period of recontouring, revegetation, and monitoring, the berm around the Section 14 Area will remain in place to isolate the area from the adjacent Hookers Prairie system. Once the Department determines that the vegetation in the Section 14 Area has been successfully reestablished, the Department will authorize IMCF to install culverts in the berm to allow for the gradual introduction of exchange of waters between the reclaimed area and the natural Hookers Prairie system. Following this process, after approval by the Department, IMCF will remove the berm area by pushing it back into the ditch and will replant the disturbed area in the previous location of the berm with desirable herbaceous wetland species. At that point, the reclaimed area will be totally reconnected to the rest of the western Hookers Prairie. The reclamation of the Section 14 Area will involve the recreation of approximately 121 acres of herbaceous wetlands. This is approximately the same amount of herbeceous wetlands that were mined or disturbed in the Section 14 Area. In addition, 24 acres of forested wetlands will be created. This is approximately six times the number of area of forested wetlands that were in the Section 14 Area prior to mining operations. IMCF has had extensive experience in the reclamation of wetland systems in Florida. The company has reclaimed over 3,000 acres of wetlands over the last ten years. The company's experience includes the reclamation of both herbaceous wetland systems and forested wetland systems. With regard to the proposed mitigation, the primary issue at dispute in the hearing was whether IMCF can control the growth of nuisance species, such as cattail and primrose willow, in accordance with the Department's current policy. This policy, which will be implemented as a condition of any permit issued in this matter, is that nuisance species shall be limited to ten percent or less of the total cover or, if these species exceed ten percent of the total cover, their density must be declining over several years. IMCF would use several methods to limit the growth of nuisance species in the reclamation area. The company will flood the reclamation area immediately following recontouring. In addition, the company will assure that water levels are maintained in the project area throughout the vegetation period. These hydrological controls are designed to preclude seeds from nuisance species growing nearby from blowing into the area and propagating. These seeds will not propagate under water. In addition, the project area would be covered by a two-inch to six- inch layer of organic mulch material. The use of such organic material inhibits the growth of nuisance species. Finally, IMCF will plant desirable wetland species on a relatively dense basis; i.e., on three- to five-foot centers. When established, these desirable species are expected to quickly grow and outcompete any nuisance species that may enter the area. There is legitimate concern about the growth of nuisance species in the reclamation area and about the company's ability to eradicate or remove nuisance species if in fact the area does become invaded. There also is legitimate concern that the disturbance caused by the construction of the perimeter berm might induce the growth of a five to fifteen foot band of nuisance species outside of the Section 14 Area. Even if this occurred, it would not have a significant impact on the Hookers Prairie system, which already contains a large amount of "nuisance species." Finally, there is a concern whether nuisance species can be kept out of the ditch and berm area after the berm is leveled since there no longer would be hydrological controls in place. I am persuaded by the weight of the evidence presented in this matter that, with the following additional special permit conditions, IMCF has provided sufficient reasonable assurances to the Department that it will be able to successfully reclaim the Section 14 Area and to control nuisance species growth in accordance with applicable Department policy: that, in accordance with existing Department policy, the plant material used for revegetation for the reclamation project be plants that grew naturally within 50 miles of the reclamation site; that the elevations in the reclamation site be "fine-tuned" after recontouring but before removal of the ditch and berm to approximate existing elevations as closely as possible except when deviations from existing elevations might be desirable to better accomplish the goals of the reclamation project and reduce nuisance species; that, upon removal of the ditch and berm, all nuisance species (cattails and primrose willow) that may have invaded the perimeter band along the berm (see Finding 25, above) be removed and revegetation over the ditch and berm area be on two to four foot centers to aid competition with any invading nuisance species. Evaluation of Project Impacts Extensive testimonial and documentary evidence was presented at the hearing concerning a wide variety of potential impacts associated with the mining of the Section 14 Area. Potential impacts addressed included the impacts of mining and reclamation upon surface water and ground water quality, upon surface water flow conditions, and upon the availability of ground water for use as a portable water supply by the Bradley Junction residents. In addition, evidence was presented concerning potential impacts upon the Bradley Junction community in the form of fugitive dust, physical damage to structures in the community, and impacts associated with machinery noise generate during the mining and reclamation process. Surface Water Quality The perimeter berm and ditch system around the Section 14 Area will completely segregate the mining operations from the adjacent Hookers Prairie wetland system and the South Prong of the Alafia River. Therefore, the mining operations will not have a direct adverse impact upon the quality of surface water outside of the Section 14 Area. As noted in Findings Nos. 17(a) and 17(b), the temporary exclusion of just the Section 14 Area from the Western Hookers Prairie wetlands system will not have a significant adverse water quality impact. But, see "J. Cumulative Impact", below. Construction of the berm will not significantly affect dissolved oxygen levels in Hookers Prairie even in the areas immediately adjacent to the berm. Natural dissolved oxygen levels in the Hookers Prairie system are relatively low, and its waters are normally in a static or stagnated condition. (Construction of the berm probably will elevate dissolved oxygen levels in some areas near the berm by creation of small open water areas and lower levels in other areas where discarded plant material accumulates.) The weight of the evidence indicates that the construction of the berm will not cause a violation of state water quality standards outside of the Section 14 Area. During the reclamation process, water quality monitoring will take place and the resulting data will be presented to the Department. Upon Department approval, the reclaimed wetland system will be gradually reconnected to the natural Hookers Prairie system. The water quality in the Section 14 Area after reclamation will comply with applicable State water quality standards. Ground Water Quality Several residents of the Bradley Junction community have raised concerns about the quality of the water withdrawn from their portable water supply wells. While it does appear that water from certain of these wells may be of substandard quality, this condition is not a result of phosphate mining operations and will not be affected by the mining and reclamation of the Section 14 Area. The basis for this finding is: Mining in the Section 14 Area will take place in the surficial aquifer system. Portable water supply wells in the Bradley Junction community area draw water from the intermediate aquifer system. The intermediate aquifer system is separated from the surficial aquifer system by a thick, relatively impervious clay layer that significantly impedes the vertical flow of ground water. The Section 14 Area is located hydrologically downgradient from the Bradley Junction community. Any seepage from mining operations will move away from Bradley Junction, not toward that location. The quality of the water that will be found in the mine cuts and ditches in the Section 14 Area is very good and probably would not significantly adversely impact the quality of the portable water drawn from Bradley Junction water supply wells even if it were physically possible for the mining-related waters to reach the wells. The Polk County Public Health Unit of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services carried out a study of the quality of portable water in the Bradley Junction community. The study indicates that water from certain of the wells exhibit elevated levels of fecal coliform. The probable source of this contamination is improper sanitary conditions in the area near the well locations. There is no evidence to indicate that phosphate mining operations have any impact on the quality of the water in these wells. Surface Water Flow Conditions At this time, the construction of the berm and ditch system and the mining in the Section 14 Area will have only a minor impact on surface water flow conditions outside of the Section 14 Area. The proposed mining and reclamation project itself will not cause an increased likelihood of flooding in downstream areas nor will it cause increased erosion in the South Prong of the Alafia River. IMCF has applied for and received a "Works of the District" permit for the Section 14 Area from the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the state agency primarily responsible for evaluating the impact of construction activities on surface water flow conditions. But see "J. Cumulative Impact," below. Ground Water Availability The digging of mine cuts in the surficial aquifer can result in a drawdown or lowering of the water table in the surficial aquifer system. If controls were not employed by IMCF in connection with the mining of the Section 14 Area, the surficial aquifer in the area of the Bradley Junction community could be drawn down by as much as five feet below natural levels. IMCF has applied for and received a consumptive use permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the state agency primarily responsible for regulating the use of ground water in the State of Florida. The consumptive use permit requires IMCF to maintain the water level in the surficial aquifer at historic levels taking into account the natural variations in the water table that occur during the year. IMCF will comply with the conditions of the consumptive use permit by the use of two positive control methods. The perimeter ditch surrounding the project site will serve as a hydrological barrier or recharge ditch that will maintain the surficial aquifer water levels at historic levels. In addition, during mining operations, the dragline will cast the removed overburden material against the face of the mine cut. This procedure will have the effect of sealing the face of the mine cut and inhibiting the flow of ground water from contiguous areas into the mine cut. In accordance with the consumptive use permit, IMCF will monitor water levels adjacent to the Section 14 Area to assure compliance with the drawdown restrictions. 1/ As noted in Finding No. 32(a), the portable water supply wells in the Bradley Junction community draw water from the intermediate aquifer system. Water levels in the intermediate aquifer system are not significantly affected by the water levels in the surficial aquifer. The two systems operate independently by virtue of the thick confining layer that separates them. Mining operations in the surficial aquifer in the Section 14 Area will have no effect on the water levels in the intermediate aquifer system underlying the Bradley Junction community. Therefore, the proposed mining operations will have no effect upon the availability of water in the Bradley Junction portable water supply wells. Dust Dragline operations and slurry pit operations are wet process activities that do not generally result in the emission of dust. Dust can be emitted as a result of vehicle travel on access roadways, by land clearing operations, and during reclamation activities especially in the dry season under high wind conditions. IMCF will control dust emissions from the Section 14 Area by use of water trucks to keep access roads moist. In addition, IMCF will curtail land clearing and reclamation operations during periods when high winds are prevailing in the direction of the Bradley Junction community. Physical Impact on Structures Certain residents of the Bradley Junction community have complained that nearby mining operations have caused physical damage to their homes. The evidence presented at the hearing, however, demonstrates that neither vibration caused by the equipment used in mining operations nor the construction of mine cuts will cause any adverse physical effects on nearby structures. The basis for this finding are as follows: Vibration measurements taken in the vicinity of the type of equipment that will be used in the Section 14 Area demonstrates that the vibration levels that will be experienced at the residences closest to the mining operations are far below the level that would cause any structural damage. These worse case conditions would be experienced at a point approximately 250 feet from the mining operations. It should be noted that these conditions will only occur when mining operations are taking place in upland areas outside of the Department's jurisdiction. Vibration impacts resulting from mining activities in the more distant jurisdictional wetland areas are even less significant. A slope stability analysis carried out by Dr. John Garlanger demonstrated that the construction of a mint cut at a distance no closer than 250 feet from a residence will cause no adverse impact on the structural integrity of the residence. This conclusion is underscored by the fact that the dragline, which is larger and heavier than the typical Bradley Junction home, will safely operate very near the edge of the mine cut without significant risk of slope collapse. Any current physical damage to structures in the Bradley Junction community is probably the result of age, water damage, improper site preparation, and other improper construction techniques. Noise Draglines, pumps, and other pieces of heavy equipment to be used in the mining and reclamation of the Section 14 Area will produce noise that is audible to, and will be annoying to, the people living near the project. None of the expected noise levels will exceed the guidelines established by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHA") for construction of highway projects near residential communities. The FHA guidelines require that noise levels may not exceed 70 decibels more than 10 percent of the time. Even in the worst case situation, which involves mining in the upland areas no closer than 250 feet from a residential structure, the expected noise levels will not exceed the FHA guidelines. When mining operations occur at more distant locations, the noise experienced in the Bradley Junction community will be proportionately reduced. The suggested United States Environmental Protection Agency noise level limitation is 55 decibels. At the 55-decibel level, there was scientific evidence that noise exposure resulted in irritability and sleep loss, but no actual hearing loss would occur. The 55 decibel EPA guideline is calculated differently than the FHA guidelines. The maximum levels expected to occur near the Section 14 Area based on the data collected by Mr. Nelson were essentially in compliance with the EPA recommendations. Furthermore, the predicted noise levels reflect outside noise levels. The noise levels inside the structures in the Bradley Junction community would be below the recommended EPA levels because of noise attenuation by the structure. The mining operations would have a reduced impact upon sleep because the company will not operate between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. when close to the residences. Mining operations in the northernmost portion of the project will occur over a period of seven months. Reclamation in the immediate vicinity of the Bradley Junction community will be completed within six months following mining operations. The predicted worst case conditions during mining and reclamation will occur only over a few weeks with regard to any particular residence. These worst case conditions will occur in upland areas outside the Department's jurisdiction. Noise resulting from activities taking place within jurisdictional wetlands is at even lower levels. Polk County Ordinance. The governmental body primarily responsible for public health concerns such as dust, noise and vibration impact or structures is the local government, Polk County. Polk County has enacted a mining setback ordinance which is less restrictive than other nearby counties - - only 250' from the nearest residence versus 500' in Hillsborough County and 1000' in Manatee County. Under the Polk County ordinance, IMCF is able to mine as close to Bradley Junction residents as it proposes. Archeological Resources There are no significant historical or archeological resources in the Section 14 Area. Cumulative Impact Hooker's Prairie is a wetlands marsh system which comprises the headwaters of the South Prong of the Alafia River. The Section 14 project area is an integral part of the Prairie. Although IMCF's case thoroughly addressed all other issues raised by the opponents of the Section 14 project-- including noise, dust and even damage to structures from vibration-- its case conspicuously failed to as clearly address the question of cumulative impacts. It is not clear from the evidence if Hookers Prairie historically was 3000 acres, 3500 acres or some other size. Likewise, the current size of the Prairie, unmined and unsevered, also is unclear from the evidence. DER has issued five previous permits for phosphate mining in Hooker's Prairie. These permits are to W. R. Grace for approximately 1000 acres in the Eastern Prairie and IMCF for approximately 120 acres in the Western Prairie, including the recent IMCF Section 12 project involving mining and filling approximately 100 acres of Hooker's Prairie. It is not clear from the evidence how much of the 1000 acres already has been mined. DER's appraisal report, dated November 4, 1987, states that there has been recent mining in Section 18 in the Western Prairie. It points out that, as a result, cattails have intruded into Section 13 of the Prairie from the east. The report states that, aside from the Section 14 project area, there were then only 720 acres of wetland left in the Western Prairie, which has been almost blocked from the Eastern Prairie by mining activities, 620 in Section 13 and 100 in the west side of Section 7. It also states that almost 700 acres "in [the Section 14 project) area alone" were then permitted for mining. Although it is not clear, this appears to consist of 96 acres IMCF had under permit "in this immediate vicinity" and 580 acres of the Prairie to the east. It is not clear whether this acreage is in addition to, or part of, the acreage referred to in Finding 48, above. To date, no one has successfully restored mined wetlands in Hooker's Prairie. IMCF has restored a small, approximately 20 acre tract of wetland in the Western Prairie, but no success determination has yet been made. IMCF's approximately 100 acre restoration in Section 12 is underway. Efforts by Grace to restore mined wetland in the Eastern Prairie were delayed while Grace and DER negotiated an alternative to the original "land and lakes" restoration concept approved under the DER permits. A wetlands restoration concept finally having been agreed to, restoration now is underway. W. R. Grace has plans to mine the entire remaining wetlands of Hookers Prairie in the foreseeable future. Wetland restoration takes approximately two to four years. IMCF plans to mine in Section 14 from July, 1989, through December, 1991. Restoration is planned to take place through December, 1994. It may take longer. During part of this time period, IMCF's 120 acres of restoration in the Western Prairie still will not be functional. There was no evidence to suggest that the Grace wetlands restoration would be completed before IMCF plans to complete its Section 14 restoration project. There was no evidence as to when Grace is expected to complete any restoration of the 1000 acres it has under permit in the Eastern Prairie. The same would be true of any other parts of the wetlands that may be under permit. In light of the substantial, though undeterminable, reduction of the size of Hooker's Prairie from its historical size, the cumulative impact of removing an additional 131 acres of wetland from the system for approximately five or more years is significant. During this time, the size of functional wetland in the Prairie may be close to just half its historical size or even less. IMCF has not given reasonable assurances that the cumulative impact of the loss of another 131 acres of Hooker's Prairie for five or more years, combined with the recent reduction in the size of the functional wetland, will not be contrary to the public interest. Further phosphate mining in Hooker's Prairie should await successful restoration of wetlands in areas already under permit for mining operations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation deny the application of IMC Fertilizer, Inc., to mine for phosphate in Section 14, Hooker's Prairie, at this time. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 14th day of February, 1989. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 1989.
