The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates provided reasonable assurance that a modification to a conceptual surface water management permit complies with the permit criteria contained in statutes and rules.
Findings Of Fact Background This case involves a 900-acre parcel in the Loxahatchee Slough, west of the Florida Turnpike in Palm Beach County (County). Although the property occupies part of a slough, all of the wetlands in this case are isolated wetlands. Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates (Applicant) owns the south 503 acres, Petitioner owns the north 287 acres, and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (Village) owns the remaining 115 acres, which abut the southwest boundary of the north parcel. The acreages do not total 900 acres because the numbers are approximate. The 900-acre parcel is generally bounded on the south by Okeechobee Boulevard and the north and east by the M-1 canal. The west boundary of the south part of the parcel adjoins a residential development known as Loxahatchee Groves, and the 115-acre parcel adjoins a County-owned preserve of at least 600 acres. Applicant’s land is undeveloped except for some landclearing. Petitioner’s land is partly developed, mostly in the south next to the boundary with Applicant’s land. The Village's 115 acres are a preserve, divided equally between wetlands and uplands. On February 11, 1988, Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) issued surface water management (SWM) permit No. 50-00618-S-02 to Royal Palm Homes, Inc. for conceptual approval of a SWM system serving a residential development on the 900-acre parcel (1988 Permit). References to the Original Developer shall include Royal Palm Homes, Inc., its agents, lenders, and assigns, except for Petitioner and Applicant. The permitted development, which was known as the Royal Palm Homes PUD, comprises single-family and multifamily residences, wetland preserve areas, two 18-hole golf courses, and a park area. On August 3, 1994, Applicant filed SWM application number 940803-6 to modify the 1988 Permit to show the change in ownership and obtain conceptual approval of a modification to the permitted SWM system. The application was not complete when the new Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules replaced the old Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) permit rules. On May 24, 1996, the District transmitted the staff report, which proposed the issuance of a permit modification. On June 13, 1996, the District approved the issuance of the proposed permit modification. On the same date, Petitioner filed its petition challenging the proposed agency action. Permits The first relevant SWM permit for the 900-acre parcel involved a larger parcel that includes the 900-acre parcel. On September 14, 1978, the District issued a two-page permit authorizing the “construction of a water management system serving 2073 acres of residential lands by waterways discharging into canal C-51.” This 1978 permit, which is identified as number 50-00618-S, contains a special condition calling for a minimum finished floor elevation of 18.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The next permit is the 1988 Permit, which is a substantial modification to the 1978 permit. The 1988 Permit covers only the previously described 900 acres and, as modified, currently remains in effect. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of two large wetlands in the north parcel, just north of the 115-acre preserve; one wetland is about 30 acres and the other is about ten acres. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of no other wetlands in the north parcel, but, in addition to the wetlands in the 115-acre preserve, the 1988 Permit requires the preservation of several much smaller wetlands in the south parcel. The staff report for the 1988 Permit divides into three basins the drainage area for the 900-acre parcel: a north basin of 98.9 acres, a central basin of 525.7 acres, and a south basin of 270.8 acres. The staff report states that basin runoff will pass through a system of inlets and culverts into a series of interconnected lakes, from which, through control structures, the runoff will pass into the M-1 canal and eventually into the C-51 canal. The staff report notes that the control elevations will be 17.25 feet NGVD for the north basin, 17.55 feet NGVD for the central basin, and 17.75 feet NGVD for the south basin. Under the discussion of environmental impacts, the staff report observes that the 1978 permit proposed for protection only 30 acres of wetlands among the 281 acres of isolated wetlands on the site. The staff report notes that “extensive” melaleuca invasion has taken place since the 1978 permit and only 160 acres of wetlands remain in “relatively good” condition, with much of this subject to melaleuca encroachment. Due to the “extensive seed source” and “seasonal drying of the wetlands,” the staff report predicts eventual melaleuca dominance of the “entire site.” The staff report asserts that the proposed development plan includes the protection of about 100 acres of the “best quality wetlands,” plus eight acres of wetlands created in conjunction with the golf courses and 15 acres of wetlands created as littoral zones in conjunction with the lakes to be constructed. The staff report calls a program “to eradicate all melaleuca from the site” “[t]he major environmental feature” of the proposed development plan. But this major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit is presently in jeopardy. One major component of the present case is that, following the conveyances of the three parcels by the Original Developer, the District has evidently concluded that no one is responsible to perform certain obligations under the 1988 Permit and no remedies are available for the nonperformance of these obligations. It appears that these conclusions are largely driven by the vagueness of the plan to eradicate the melaleuca. This plan is called the "Melaleuca Eradication Plan." The Melaleuca Eradication Plan is incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan, which is dated December 11, 1987, recounts that the Original Developer and regulatory bodies agreed that the melaleuca should be “eradicated and a program for this should be developed and included as a part of the permit application.” The plan states that the eradication plan will cover the entire 900- acre site with the Original Developer performing the “initial . . . program” on the entire site, including the 115-acre preserve to be deeded to the Village. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan calls for the Original Developer to create a bonded authority to conduct the “ten-year melaleuca eradication program.” The program is phased to coincide with the projected 10-year buildout of the 3000-unit parcel. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan describes in detail the three phases of the program and exactly how the Original Developer will proceed to remove the melaleuca and restore wetlands by planting native wetland species in disturbed areas. The plan promises a yearly inspection followed by hand-removal of any seedlings discovered on the site. This last phase will terminate ten years after commencement of the first phase. A “Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program” is also incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which is dated December 8, 1987, states that Dr. Dwight Goforth performed a wetlands survey of the 900-acre site in 1985 and divided wetlands into three categories based on their quality. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance promises the preservation of 112.71 acres of wetlands comprising 98.81 acres of “large wetlands totally preserved” and nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres that will be “partially preserved.” Also, the program will create golf course wetlands of 6.93 acres and littoral-zone wetlands around the lakes of 15 acres. Thus, the program summarizes, the “total wetland acreage preserved, enhanced and created will [be] 134.64 acres.” The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program describes a three-year monitoring program using transects to assist in the vegetative mapping of the site. The program also promises semiannual observations of birds, small rodents, and larger mammals using the wetlands and adjacent preserved uplands, as well as semiannual sampling for fish, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program outlines a plan to remove melaleuca and control algae buildup in the lakes. The program promises to contain algae through the use of “biological controls” and, when needed, hand-raking. The program also assures that the Original Developer will use a “conservative fertilization program” for the golf course and landscaped areas to reduce eutrophication in the created lakes. On February 18, 1988, the District issued its conceptual approval of the 1988 Permit. Among the special conditions of the 1988 Permit are Special Condition 15, which requires wetland monitoring and maintenance in accordance with the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, and Special Condition 16, which requires melaleuca removal in accordance with the Melaleuca Eradication Plan. Also, Special Condition 17 requires low berms around protected or created wetlands, including littoral zones, to protect against sheetflow runoff from the golf course or other areas of intense development. The references in the preceding paragraphs to the responsibilities of the "Original Developer" imply greater clarity than is present in the Melaleuca Eradication Plan or Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The passive voice predominates in both these documents, so it is sometimes difficult to determine on whom a particular responsibility falls. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan states clearly that "[the Original Developer] will conduct the initial melaleuca eradication on the entire site including the dedicated park area [i.e., the 115 acres]." The next sentence of the plan contemplates the conveyance of the 115 acres to the County. But, after these clear provisions, the Melaleuca Eradication Plan lapses into the passive voice almost invariably. The next two sentences read, "A bonded authority will be created to conduct the ten-year melaleuca eradication program" and "The eradication program will be carried out through a bonded agreement with the [Original] Developer to remove the melaleuca . . .." Alluding to the several phases of melaleuca eradication, the plan states only "[t]he eradication program will be completed in stages " Only two other sentences establishing responsibility for melaleuca eradication identify the responsible party. The end of the plan states that the "bonded authority responsible for initial eradication clearance will likewise provide a yearly inspection." One of the final sentences of the plan adds: "the bonding authority's crew will hand remove entire seedlings found on site." The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program is similar except that it does not once name the entity responsible for the monitoring and maintenance duties or hiring the firm or individual to conduct the actual work. The two special conditions incorporating these two documents likewise are in the passive voice, implying only that the responsibility belongs to the Original Developer. Given the vagueness of the melaleuca-eradication and wetlands-maintenance documents, it is not surprising that they fail entirely to address the issue whether these responsibilities run with the land, remain the responsibility of the Original Developer, or, for the eradication of melaleuca, remain the duty of the "bonded authority," if the Original Developer ever created such an entity, which appears highly doubtful. The documents likewise do not disclose the penalties for noncompliance. On June 16, 1988, the District issued a modification to the 1988 Permit for the construction and operation of a 110.9-acre residential development in Phase I, which occupies the central basin. On October 1, 1988, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) issued the Original Developer a permit to destroy 164 acres of wetlands on the 900-acre parcel. Special conditions of the 1988 Army Corps permit require the preservation of "115 acres of high quality wetlands," the creation of 18 acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral shelf, and the implementation of a "Melaleuca Eradication Program," which is the same program as is incorporated in the 1988 Permit. The 1988 Army Corps permit contains an attachment dated October 24, 1987. This attachment identifies the protected wetlands as the two large wetlands in the north parcel totaling about 40 acres, 58 acres in the 115-acre preserve, and 53.5 acres in the south parcel. The 1988 Army Corps permit protects several wetlands in the south parcel, including wetland numbers 14 (3.04 acres), 16 (1.6 acres), 23 (0.53 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 44 (0.8 acres), 29 (1.08 acres), and 46 (3.0 acres). These wetlands, which total 12.65 acres, are seven of the nine wetlands partially preserved in the 1988 Permit, although some of the acreages vary from those preserved in the 1988 Permit. Unlike the District's permits (except for the subject proposed permit modification), the 1988 Army Corps permit addresses conveyances by the developer. The 1988 Army Corps permit states: "If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization." Below the signature line of the 1988 Army Corps permit is language stating: When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below. On March 1, 1989, the Original Developer conveyed the 115-acre preserve to the Village, which later leased the preserve to the County. The Original Developer had not eradicated the melaleuca at the time of the conveyance, nor has anyone since done so. On August 17, 1990, water elevations in the wetlands in Phase I reached 19.4 feet NGVD, washing out construction pads, roads, and in-ground utilities. On September 7, 1990, the District issued a stop-work request because the SWM system was not working as required. On September 28, 1990, the District approved interim measures to preserve the wetland hydroperiod and allow for wetland overflow. These measures include berming the residential areas in Phase I/Plat I adjacent to wetlands. On June 13, 1991, the District approved additional modifications to the 1988 Permit and the construction and operations permit for Phase I and issued a conceptual approval for works in the north and central basins. The revisions to the conceptual approval include adding two control structures to the north wetland that connect to the water management system in the north basin and adding a berm around the smaller of the two preserved wetlands in the north parcel. The construction approval was for a perimeter berm along the south wetland and park areas. On June 24, 1992, the District issued a staff report recommending issuance of another modification of the 1988 Permit for the conceptual approval of a SWM system to serve the 900-acre parcel and approval of construction and operation of a SWM system to isolate and control the existing onsite wetlands and revise the control structure for the central basin. The staff report explains that this modification proposes berming the wetlands to the 100-year, three-day peak elevation. The staff report notes that the wetlands basin consists of 295.18 acres of wetlands, including 155.85 acres of “wetlands/uplands.” The staff report notes that the north basin contains 107.41 acres of “good quality wet prairie wetlands” with “minimal” melaleuca encroachment. The staff report restates that the purpose of the modification is to berm all of the wetlands and uplands not planned for development. Special Condition 19 requires the Original Developer to dedicate as conservation and common areas in deed restrictions the “wetland preservation/mitigation areas, upland buffer zones, and/or upland preservation areas," so that these areas are the “perpetual responsibility” of a named property owners’ association. Special Condition 22 states that “a wetland monitoring and maintenance program” and “a melaleuca eradication program” “shall be implemented,” but the condition does not expressly state by whom. Special Condition 22 requires that the work implementing these programs conform to these “approved environmental programs as outlined in the [1988 Permit].” Special Condition 25 provides that, on submittal of an application for construction approval in the south basin (Phase II), the "permittee shall submit a detailed wetland construction mitigation, monitoring and maintenance plan.” In evaluating the plan for approval, the District shall apply the “environmental criteria in effect at the time of construction permit application.” Although the approval of the District is not attached to the staff report, the District approved the June 24, 1992, staff report and proposed permit. The 1992 permit modification did not address the issue of who was responsible for melaleuca eradication after the sale of the property. On November 10, 1993, the staff report accompanying another request for a permit modification restates the special conditions of earlier permit modifications. Special Condition 23 restates the requirement that a melaleuca eradication program “shall be implemented,” again not stating by whom. Special Condition 23 now requires the completion of the melaleuca eradication program by February 25, 1994. The omission of a referenced exhibit to the permit from the exhibit filed in this case prevents a determination that this is the same as the Melaleuca Eradication Plan incorporated in the 1988 Permit and restated in the 1992 modification, although it probably is. In any event, Special Condition 23 concludes in another sentence lacking a stated or implied subject: “Maintenance of the preserved wetlands and berm planting areas shall be conducted in perpetuity to ensure that the conservation areas are maintained free from exotic vegetation (Brazilian pepper, Australian pine and melaleuca) . . ..” Although the record does not contain the written approval of the District to the staff report, the District approved the staff report dated November 10, 1993. On November 12, 1993, the Original Developer conveyed by special warranty deed the north to Petitioner. The deed is subject only to "easements, declarations, restrictions and reservations of record . . .." The record does not provide recording information for the deed. The Original Developer probably conveyed the south parcel to Applicant in the same fashion and at the same approximate time. Almost five months later, on March 29, 1994, the Army Corps issued another permit for the 900-acre parcel. Although the Original Developer had conveyed at least the north parcel, the Army Corps issued the 1994 permit to the Original Developer. The 1994 Army Corps permit authorizes the destruction of 158 acres. The general conditions governing transfers are the same as those in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The special conditions of the 1994 Army Corps permit require the permittee to preserve and enhance only 110 acres of high quality wetlands, instead of preserving 115 acres of such wetlands, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The 1994 Army Corps permit drops the requirement of creating eight acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral zone, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit, but requires the preservation of what appears to be the 39.5-acre preserve that is proposed by Applicant in the subject permit modification, as described below. Special Condition 3 of the 1994 Army Corps permit adds that all preserved areas "will be maintained in perpetuity free of Melaleuca. The permittee agrees to develop a bonded Melaleuca eradication program for the entire 906 acres. Copies of the bonded agreement will be provided to this office for approval before development can commence." The next permit activity affecting the 900-acre parcel is the subject application filed by Applicant on August 3, 1994, for its 503-acre parcel. On May 24, 1996, the District issued a staff report for conceptual approval of a SWM system proposed by Applicant for its 503-acre parcel. On June 13, 1996, the District issued an addendum to the staff report that contains another special condition that is not especially relevant to this case. In the background section, the staff report mentions the flooding of Phase I of the north parcel and states that the District had “assumed the adjacent wetlands would flow away from the development.” The staff report outlines the modifications implemented to eliminate the flooding; these modifications include connecting the M-1 canal, through inlets, with several wetlands located in the north and central basins. According to the staff report, Petitioner’s north parcel, which totals 287.34 acres, includes the Phase I/Plat 1 area, north basin, and part of central basin south of Phase I. Describing Applicant’s proposal, the staff report states that a preserve of 39.5 acres will be located in the northwest corner of the south parcel, adjoining the east boundary of the 115-acre parcel. The staff report states that the 39.5-acre preserve will sheetflow through cuts in the berm to wetlands in the 115-acre preserve. The 115-acre preserve is connected to the SWM system permitted on November 10, 1993, to eliminate flooding from these wetlands, whose control elevation is 19 feet NGVD. The staff report describes the south parcel as “dominated by flatwood habitat,” within which are stands of Australian pine and other exotic plant species that have recently been spreading across the site. The onsite wetlands are 4.93 acres of wet prairies, 18.4 acres of pond cypress strands, 1.56 acres of isolated marsh, 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwood, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca. The staff report finds that only the 4.93 acres of wet prairies and 18.4 acres of cypress are in good condition, but melaleuca has become established in many of the wet prairies. The 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes and 163.91 acres of melaleuca are in poor condition. The 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwoods are in fair condition. As for listed species, the staff report mentions only the possibility that herons might forage onsite during periods of standing water. Summarizing the impact of the proposed project on wetlands preservation, the staff report endorses the hydrologic reconnection of the 39.5-acre wetland/upland site with the 115-acre wetland. The staff report notes that water levels in the 115-acre preserve, which has been bermed to 21 feet NGVD, have stabilized at 19 feet NGVD. The staff report asserts that the “proposed wetland impacts (183.54 acres) were previously permitted under the conceptual permit application” for the original 1988 Permit. The staff report adds that this modification is to “change a portion of the original mitigation requirements . . . and includes impacts to a 6.78 acre wetland area that was previously permitted to be preserved.” But the staff report does not recommend the preservation of this wetland “[d]ue to the reduced hydrology and proximity to the proposed upland development” and the mitigation and compensation provided by the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report states that 8.76 acres of the 39.5- acre preserve are wetlands, and the remainder are uplands. As for the 8.76 acres of wetlands, the staff report lists 0.67 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods, 4.93 acres of wet prairies, and 3.16 acres of cypress. Applicant would also restore 4.95 acres of pine flatwoods. As for the 183.54 acres of wetlands to be destroyed, the staff report lists 2.83 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods in fair condition, 15.24 acres of cypress in fair condition, 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes in poor condition, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca in poor condition. Addressing the mitigation and monitoring elements of the current proposal, the staff report states that the modification would eliminate the creation of 15 acres of littoral wetlands around SWM lakes and 7.99 acres of marshes in golf courses in return for the creation of the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report assures that Applicant will perpetually manage and maintain the 115-acre preserve. Conceding that the 1988 Permit also required long-term maintenance of the 115-acre parcel, the staff report notes that the initial eradication effort was never completed. The staff report mentions an “access agreement” giving Applicant the authority to enter the 115-acre preserve for mitigation and monitoring, but “anticipat[es]” that Applicant will submit an application for another permit modification, on behalf of the two governmental entities, so that Applicant can “assume future maintenance responsibilities for this area.” As is clarified by the maintenance and monitoring plan, which is part of the proposed permit, Applicant's expectation is that the County and Village, not Applicant, will assume future maintenance responsibilities for the 115-acre preserve. The staff report concludes that the District should issue the permit subject to various conditions. Special Condition 1 is that the minimum building floor elevation is 20 feet NGVD. Special Condition 16 requires the implementation of a wetland mitigation program and requires Applicant to create 4.95 acres of marsh; restore 3.16 acres of cypress, 4.93 acres of marsh, and 0.67 acres of mixed forest; and protect 25.79 acres of uplands. Special Condition 17 sets performance criteria for the mitigation areas in terms of percentage and length of survival of vegetation. Special Condition 17 supplies completion dates for monitoring reports. Special Condition 21 addresses listed species. Noting that listed species have been seen onsite or the site contains suitable habitat for such species, Special Condition 21 requires Applicant to coordinate with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission or the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for guidance, recommendations, or permits to avoid impacts to such species. The monitoring and maintenance plan does not address direct and contingent liabilities for maintenance and generally is a poor candidate for enforcement. In addition to the vagueness of the passive voice, the plan is, at times, simply unreadable, as, for example, when it concludes boldly, but enigmatically: The site as a whole is evolving hydrologic trends which permits successional seres development toward communities with shorter hydroperiods and ultimately, toward more upland transitional and/or exotic species dominance of historically wetland habitats. Long-term prospectives infer that successional deflection has become a severe detriment for natural environmental control to alter the present scenario. Active management coupled with graduated balanced in hydrologic restoration and created habitat elements will become the processes engineered to obtain an infusion of probabilities fashioned to inscribe a regenerative adaptation to the present site condition while fostering in situ processes, to optimize derived functions, for the maintenance of both habitat and wildlife over the long-term existence of the Preserve. (Sic.) Water Quality Impacts Petitioner does not contend in its proposed recommended order that the proposed project fails to meet applicable requirements regarding water quality. Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed permit modification would not violate State water quality standards. Flooding Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding water quantity and flooding. However, Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the project would not violate these requirements. There are several aspects to a SWM system. Undeveloped land stores and conveys rainfall through soil and surface storage. An artificial SWM system alters the undeveloped land’s storage capacity by the addition of a storage and drainage system, such as, in this case, conveying water through the soil into storm drains and then to lakes to store surface runoff prior to release, through an outfall structure, into a receiving body of water--in this case, the M-1 canal. The SWM system hastens the conveyance of stormwater runoff offsite. The control elevation of a SWM system is the height at which water in the lakes will flow through the outfall structure into the receiving body of water. Except during the dry season, the control elevation tends to establish not only the water level of the SWM lakes, but also of the nearby water table. The hastening of drainage offsite with the establishment of control elevations produce the drawdown effect of SWM systems. As to flooding, the basic underlying dispute between Petitioner and Respondents is whether to use the pre- or post- development depth to water table. In determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on wetlands, one would project the effect of any post-development drawdown on the wetlands themselves and their functions and inhabitants. It would be illogical not to do the same in determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on flooding. Pre-development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property is as little as two feet. Post- development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property will be five feet, which is the difference between the control elevation of 14 feet NGVD and ground elevation of 19 feet NGVD. Petitioner’s evidence concerning flooding is flawed because its expert witness based his calculations on an average depth to water table of two feet on Applicant’s property. He did not adjust for the considerable drawdown effect of the SWM system. The District table allows for no more than four feet between the water table and ground, so there is an added margin of safety in the ensuing flooding calculations. Another important factor in the flooding calculations is the soil type in terms of permeability. The District properly characterized the prevailing soils as flatwoods, and the soils onsite are in the category of “good drainage.” Applicant’s suggestion that flooding calculations use the post-development soils is rejected. Post-development depths to water table are used because they can be calculated to predict post-development conditions accurately. Applicant produced no proof that it would replace such massive amounts of soil from the site with more permeable soils so as to justify reclassifying the soil type. The District's flooding calculations probably overstate the risk of flooding in the three-day, 100-year design storm because they ignore lake bank storage, which is the additional amount of water that a lake can store in its sloped banks above the typical water elevation. The District could have relied on the effect of lake bank storage for additional assurance that the proposed project will not result in flooding. The proposed project contains a large number of long, narrow lakes, which will thus have a relatively high percentage of lake banks to lake area. Additionally, the District has raised the minimum floor elevation at this site by two feet over 18 years. Whatever other effects may follow from this trend, the higher floor elevation offers additional protection to onsite improvements. The flooding of Petitioner’s property seven years ago understandably is a matter of concern to Petitioner. Applicant proposes to change the configuration of drainage basins, but the District has adequately addressed the drainage issue, and this is not the first time in the 20-year permitting history of this property that the District has approved a reconfiguration of basins. Also, in the 1988 Permit, the District incorrectly projected the direction of runoff under certain conditions. However, the flooding was partly due to inadequate road- drainage facilities. Following the flooding, the Original Developer enlarged these features and bermed the flooding wetlands, so as to eliminate the flooding of developed areas due to design storm events. On balance, Applicant has proved that the proposed permit modification would not adversely affect flooding or water quantity. Environmental Impacts A. Wetlands Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding environmental impacts to wetlands. Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed work would not violate these requirements. There are two major deficiencies in the District's analysis of wetland impacts and mitigation or compensation. First, the proposed permit modification includes mitigation or compensation in the form of melaleuca removal. But prior permits have already required the same work, no one has ever done the work, and the District does not know if these permit requirements are still enforceable. Second, the proposed permit modification ignores 13.9 acres of preserved wetlands in the 1988 Permit, allowing their destruction without mitigation or compensation. The permitting process requires the District to balance the impacts of development and mitigation or compensation on the natural resources under the District's jurisdiction. Balancing these impacts in issuing the 1988 Permit, the District required the complete eradication of melaleuca in return for permitting the residential, institutional, and recreational development proposed by the Original Developer. District staff, not the Original Developer or Petitioner, called the Melaleuca Eradication Plan “the major environmental feature” of the development plan approved by the 1988 Permit. The major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit clearly justified significant development impacts on natural resources. To justify additional development impacts on natural resources, the District now proposes to count again another developer’s promise to eradicate the melaleuca. The District claims that the term of the original melaleuca protection plan was only ten years, not perpetual as is presently proposed. However, the District's claim ignores Special Condition 23 in the 1993 permit modification. This condition set a deadline of February 25, 1994, for the eradication of melaleuca and made perpetual the requirement that one or more of the potentially responsible parties--the Original Developer, Petitioner, Applicant, the bonded authority, the property owners' association, or transferees-- maintain the wetlands free of melaleuca and other exotics. Unfortunately, this “major environmental feature” of the 1988 Permit, as well as subsequent permit modifications, was so poorly drafted as to leave potentially responsible parties unsure of their legal obligations. The District tacitly suggests that it cannot enforce the obligations imposed by the 1988 Permits and later modifications for the eradication of melaleuca. But there is presently no reason for the District to resort again to permitting without first reviewing carefully its enforcement options. The District should first determine whether anyone will voluntarily assume these obligations. As a business consideration, Petitioner may choose to eradicate the melaleuca from the north parcel and 115-acre preserve to prevent Applicant from providing this service and claiming that it should receive compensation credit against additional environmental impacts permitted by a modification of the 1988 Permit. Maybe the County or Village has already budgeted funds for this work. If no party offers to perform the necessary work, the District must next determine its legal rights and the legal obligations of these parties. Depending on the results of this research, the District may need to consider litigation and the cessation of the issuance of construction and operation permits on the 900-acre parcel or either the north or south parcel. At this point, the District should discuss joint litigation or permit revocation with the Army Corps, whose 1994 permit requires the permittee to develop a bonded melaleuca-eradication program and apparently imposes on the permittee the responsibility to maintain all preserved areas free of melaleuca. Only after having exhausted these options may the District legitimately conclude that melaleuca eradication on any part of the 900 acres represents fair compensation for the development impacts on jurisdictional natural resources. The second major problem as to wetlands impacts concerns the calculation of wetlands acreages to be destroyed by the proposed permit. The 1988 Permit expressly incorporates the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. This program, as an operative part of the 1988 Permit, represents that the developer will “partially preserve. . .” nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres. The partial preservation of wetlands does not mean that a five-acre wetland will remain a five-acre wetland, except that its function will be impaired. Partial preservation means that, for instance, two acres of a five- acre wetland will be preserved. It is impossible for the District to have required mitigation to offset the destruction of these 13.9 acres of wetlands because the District denies that the 1988 Permit required the partial preservation of these nine wetlands. As noted below, neither the District nor Applicant can identify all of the wetlands that make up the 13.9 acres. Rather than account for these wetlands that were to have been partially preserved, the District instead contends that this undertaking by the Original Developer was ineffective or nonbinding because it was overriden by contrary statements in the staff report. Not so. The specific provisions delineating the preserved wetlands area in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was prepared by the Original Developer, override more general statements contained in the staff report accompanying the permit. There is not necessarily a conflict between the staff report and the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The staff report states that the plan “includes the protection of approximately 100 acres of the best quality wetlands,” together with the creation of eight acres of golf course wetlands and 15 acres of lake littoral zones. The plan “includes” these wetlands among those preserved or created; the word suggests that the list is not exhaustive, but only illustrative. Alternatively, if the list were exhaustive, the preservation of “approximately” 100 acres reasonably encompasses the 112.71 acres of partially or totally preserved wetlands cited in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. More to the point, on October 26, 1987, Donald Wisdom, the engineer handling the 1988 Permit, prepared a memorandum for the file stating that the total acreage of wetlands to be preserved or created was 134.45. This figure represents an insignificant deviation of 0.19 acres from the total listed in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was dated six weeks later, on December 8, 1987. In the October 26 memorandum, Mr. Wisdom describes the preserved wetlands as 111.46 acres of A- and B-quality wetlands. This is 1.25 acres less than the acreage in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. These small discrepancies were eliminated by November 18, 1987, when Mr. Wisdom wrote a memorandum noting that the program called for the total preservation of 98.81 acres and partial preservation of 13.9 acres. Adding the created wetlands, the new total for preserved or created wetlands was 134.64 acres. A month later, a District employee wrote a memorandum to the file, expressing his “main concern” that the proposed development would protect only 99 acres of wetlands. It is unclear why the employee mentioned only the 98.81 acres slated for preservation. Perhaps he was confused or mistaken. But the misgivings of a single employee do not constitute the rejection by the District of a developer's proposal to preserve nearly 14 acres of high-quality wetlands. The staff report for the 1988 Permit notes that the 900-acre site contained about 281 acres of wetlands. If the 1988 Permit required the preservation, as an entire wetland or part of a larger wetland, of 112 acres of wetlands, then the 1988 Permit allowed the destruction of 169 acres, which is consistent with the 164 and 158 acres allowed to be destroyed by the 1988 and 1994 Army Corps permits. However, by the 1996 permit modification, the staff report refers, without explanation or justification, to the permitted destruction of 183.54 acres of wetlands--evidently adding the 13.9 acres to the 169 acres previously permitted to be destroyed. Tab 13 of the Wisdom bluebook identifies the nine wetlands constituting the 13.9 acres, which are entirely in Applicant's south parcel. Except for three, all of these wetlands were characterized as A-quality, meaning that they are in good to excellent condition and “have not been stressed significantly from the biological viewpoint.” B-quality wetlands are in disturbed condition and “are in various stages of biological stress caused primarily by a lowered water table and/or melaleuca invasion.” C-quality wetlands are highly disturbed and “are substantially degraded biologically.” The 13.9 acres of wetlands comprise wetland numbers 23 (0.5 acres), 46 (0.4 acres), 44 (0.6 acres), 37 (0.4 acres), 29 (1.1 acres), 20 [sometimes misreported as 21] (3.9 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 16 (1.5 acres), and 14 (2.9 acres). Wetland numbers 46 and 29 are B-quality, and wetland number 20 is C-quality. The wetlands shown in District Exhibit 4 and Applicant Exhibit 3 inaccurately portray the wetlands constituting the missing 13.9 acres. A internal memorandum to the file notwithstanding, the District predicated the 1988 Permit in part on the preservation of 112.71 acres of functioning wetlands, including the 13.9 acres that the District now disclaims. The mitigation and compensation required of Applicant in the present case ignored the destruction of these wetlands. The District's analysis of mitigation and compensation in this case was fatally flawed by these two deficiencies. But more deficiencies exist in the District's analysis of wetland impacts. The District relied on faulty data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. Undercounting the extent of wetlands by at least 21 acres and their condition by an indeterminable amount, Applicant presented to the District a materially inaccurate picture of the wetland resources on the south parcel. Despite disclaimers to the contrary, the District relied on this inaccurate data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. There are possible problems with 39.5-acre preserve offered by Applicant. This parcel contains less than nine acres of wetlands, including two wetlands that Applicant may already be required to preserve under the 1994 Army Corps permit. At the same time, Applicant's proposal may include the destruction of a third wetland that is to be preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. The best rendering in the record of the 1994 Army Corps permit may be Applicant Exhibit 4, which shows eight large wetland areas to be “preserved/enhanced/created.” Two of these are the 10- and 30-acre wetlands on Petitioner’s property, which were preserved in the 1988 Permit. Three of the eight wetlands are in the 115-acre preserve; these were also preserved in the 1988 Permit. The remaining three wetlands to be preserved, enhanced, or created under the 1994 Army Corps permit are in the north end of Applicant’s property. It is difficult to estimate acreage given the scale of the drawing, but the two westerly wetlands are about 4-5 acres each and the easterly wetland is 3-3.5 acres. Subtracting the total preserved acreage of 110 from the acreage identified in the preceding paragraph, the total acreage of these remaining three wetlands is about 12. The two westerly wetlands are in the 39.5-acre preserve that Applicant offers as mitigation in the present case. According to Applicant Exhibit 6, the easterly wetland, or at least the most valuable part of it--the center--is slated for destruction if the District grants the subject permit modification. The proposed destruction of the third wetland is a matter of greater interest to the Army Corps than to the District, but the offer to preserve the other two wetlands really does not provide anything in return for the permitted development impacts because these two wetlands are already preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. As the District and Applicant contend, golf course marshes and littoral zones are typically of little environmental importance. Although the 1988 Permit addresses some of these problems, although without supplying any performance standards, golf courses themselves are often conduits of fertilizers and pesticides into the groundwater and nearby surface water. The District and Applicant justifiably question the value of the golf courses approved in the 1988 Permit as wildlife corridors. It is unclear what wildlife would use the corridor, which is surrounded by residential development and bounded by Okeechobee Boulevard. Other factors also militate in favor of Applicant's proposal. But, as the record presently stands, there is no way to find that Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed development and related mitigation and compensation, as described in the subject permit modification, meet the applicable criteria. The District substantially undervalued the environmental impacts of the proposed modification while substantially overvaluing the environmental impacts of Applicant's proposed contributions in the form of mitigation and compensation. To find adequate assurance as to wetland impacts in these circumstances, where the District did not perform an informed balancing of various impacts in a large-scale development, would permit the District to transform the unavoidably imprecise task of balancing wetland impacts into an act of pure, unreviewable discretion. Listed Species The only relevant listed species onsite is the gopher tortoise, which is a species of special concern. Gopher tortoises use the site to an undetermined extent. Applicant's suggestion that someone brought the tortoises to the site is rejected as improbable. However, due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant provided reasonable assurance as to the value of functions provided to wildlife and listed species by wetlands. Procedural Issues A. Standing Petitioner has standing due most obviously to flooding considerations. Additionally, the SWM system permitted in 1988 is for the entire 900-acre parcel, of which Petitioner’s parcel is a part. Applicability of ERP Rules The proposed permit modification would substantially affect water resources. The proposed permit modification would substantially increase the adverse effect on water resources. Requirement to Delineate Wetlands Due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant met applicable requirements concerning the delineation of wetlands. Improper Purpose Petitioner did not challenge the proposed permit modification for an improper purpose. Relevant Provisions of Basis of Review The District revised its Basis of Review after the adoption of ERP rules. Although the order concludes that the District should have applied the ERP rules, and thus the ERP Basis of Review, the order shall discuss both versions of the Basis of Review because the District ignored numerous provisions of both documents in approving Applicant's request for a permit modification. Section 4.6 MSSW Basis of Review requires the District to consider "actual impact" to the site by "considering the existing natural system as altered by the proposed project[,]" including "positive and negative environmental impacts." Section 4.6 requires the District to "balance" these impacts "to achieve a reasonable degree of protection for significant environmental features consistent with the overall protection of the water resources of the District." The proposed permit modification fails to comply with several provisions of Appendix 7 of the MSSW Basis of Review, such as Sections 4.2 requiring a detailed description of the isolated wetlands to be destroyed; 5.1.1(d) favoring the protection of isolated wetlands over their destruction, mitigation, and compensation, which are considered "only when there are no feasible project design alternatives"; and 5.1.6 prohibiting the alteration of water tables so as to affect adversely isolated wetlands. The proposed permit modification also violates various provisions of the ERP Basis of Review. Section 4.0 of the ERP Basis of Review sets the goal of permitting to be "no net loss in wetland . . . functions." Sections 4.2 and following generally require balancing. Section 4.2.1 predicates District approval on a showing that the SWM system does not cause a "net adverse impact on wetland functions . . . which is not offset by mitigation." The ERP provisions first require that the District "explore" with an applicant the minimization of impacts prior to considering mitigation. Section 4.2.2.4(c) specifically imposes monitoring requirements for SWM systems that "could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands." Sections 4.3.2.2 and following discuss mitigation ratios under the ERP Basis of Review. If the District can explicate a policy to count as mitigation wetlands acreage already preserved under Army Corps permits, the ratios in this case might warrant further consideration, assuming Applicant resubmits an application for permit modification. But it would be premature to consider the ratios on the present record for several reasons. The District has not proved such a policy. If such a policy counts such wetland acreage, on the theory that the District protects function and the Army Corps protects merely the wetland, the record is insufficiently developed as to the functions of the wetlands proposed for protection, as well as the functions of the 13.9 acres of wetlands proposed for destruction. Also, the District has not sufficiently explored project minimization, as is now required under the ERP Basis of Review.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order denying Applicant's request for a permit modification. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 13, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 13, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey D. Kneen John F. Mariani J. Barry Curtain Levy Kneen 1400 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ronald K. Kolins Thomas A. Sheehan, III Moyle Flanigan Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John J. Fumero Marcy I. LaHart Office of Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Samuel E. Poole, III Executive Director Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether four agency memoranda describing policy on mitigation for dredge and fill projects are unpromulgated rules and were relied on by the agency in violation of Section 120.535(1), F.S. During the hearing, and afterwards in writing, Petitioner sought leave to amend its pleadings to incorporate other policies allegedly relied on by the agency in the process of the dredge and fill application review. That request was denied in an order entered on August 23, 1993. Those policies are addressed in the recommended order in DOAH #93-3367.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, SIP Properties Limited Partnership (SIP) is the record owner of the parcel at issue, approximately thirty-five (35) acres located in the southwest area of Orlando, Orange County, Florida. SIP proposes to prepare the site for commercial and office use by developing the site into separate parcels or lots with proposed uses such as restaurant or fast food establishments, offices and retail stores. Development of the site requires the construction of compensating storage ponds that will act as retention/detention ponds and filling the site. The proposed improvements will result in the filling of 7.47 acres and dredging of 0.42 acres of wetlands claimed to be jurisdictional by DEP. Based on statements made to SIP by staff regarding department "mitigation policies" applicable to SIP's dredge and fill permit application, SIP believed that department policy memoranda were applied during permit review. SIP attached these various memoranda regarding mitigation to its Petition for Administrative Determination of Violation of Rulemaking Requirement dated May 27, 1993, and identified these memoranda as nonrule policies utilized by the department. The department retains on file and makes available for use by its staff the identified memoranda. However, in this case the department did not rely on or apply the mitigation guidelines contained in the memoranda in SIP's Petition. Instead, it applied Part III of Chapter 17-3120, F.A.C. In Part III of Chapter 17-312, F.A.C., the agency has adopted rules addressing the mitigation issues contained in the memoranda in SIP's Petition. For example, the agency has adopted guidelines in rule 17-312.340(2), F.A.C., for applying ratios when mitigation involves creation of state waters, as in this case. The department presently relies on these rules when reviewing mitigation plans, and does not rely on the policy memos referenced in the petition. Determining the mitigation needed to successfully offset impacts from a project is difficult and depends on many factors, including hydrology, soils, planting methods, and monitoring plans. Determining what is needed to reasonably assure successful mitigation must be done on a case by case basis. Not enough is known about the subject to apply any particular set of directions and expect success. DEP is presently in the process of developing rules to further address most aspects of mitigation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection issue its Final Order granting SIP's dredge and fill permit #48-2086169, with the mitigation proposed by the applicant, and establishing an expiration date and monitoring and evaluation plan for determining success of the mitigation as provided in rules 17-312.320 and 17-312.350, F.A.C. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 11th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-3. Adopted in paragraph 2. 4.-6. Adopted in paragraph 7. 7.-8. Rejected as unnecessary. 9. Adopted in paragraph 8. 10.-11. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. 12. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. 13.-16. Rejected as unnecessary Adopted in paragraphs 11 and 12. Rejected as unnecessary. 19.-21. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. 22.-23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. 24.-25. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 16. Substantially rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Adopted in part in paragraph 17, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 18. Rejected as immaterial. The agency witnesses established that the vegetation along the canal evidences the physical connection and there is evidence that water flows from the site into the canal. Rejected as unsubstantiated by reliable competent evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. 36.-40. Rejected as unsupported by reliable competent evidence. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary, and as to characterization of merely "relic" wetlands, unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected (the conclusion of jurisdictional limit) as unsupported by the greater weight of evidence. 45.-53. Rejected as immaterial or unnecessary. 54.-56. Adopted in paragraphs 33 and 34. 57. Adopted, as to the limited function, in paragraphs 22 and 23. 58. Adopted in paragraph 26. 59.-60. Adopted in paragraph 23. 61. Rejected, as to the absolute conclusion of "no function", as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 62. Adopted in paragraph 25. 63.-64. Adopted in paragraph 26. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 30. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in substance in paragraph 31. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 30 and 34. Adopted in paragraph 31. 71.-73. Adopted in paragraph 33. 74.-77. Rejected as unnecessary. 78.-79. Adopted in paragraph 31. 80.-81. Adopted in paragraph 35. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 33. 84.-90. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 15. 2.-3. Adopted in paragraph 16. 4.-5. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as unnecessary and as to "binding" effect, unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 19. 11.-15. Adopted in substance in paragraph 21. 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and inconsistent with proposed findings #18 with regard to the constant level in the canal. 17.-18. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 21 and 23. 19.-21. Adopted in paragraphs 19 and 20. 22.-26. Adopted in summary in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 1 and 2. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in part in paragraph 16. That the forests are "healthy and viable" is rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. Adopted in part in paragraph 25; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 33.-34. Adopted in part in paragraph 27; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 35.-37. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 38.-43. Rejected as unnecessary. 44. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The stormwater management plan and mitigation will restore the stormwater treatment functions. 45.-47. Adopted in substance in paragraph 30. Rejected as substantially contrary to the greater weight of evidence (as to the negative impact). Adopted in part, as to water quality problems generally, but rejected as to the ultimate conclusion, as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 51.-52. Adopted in summary in paragraph 31. 53.-54. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 55. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Ronald M. Schirtzer, Esquire Martha H. Formella, Esquire R. Duke Woodson, Esquire FOLEY & LARDNER 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1800 Orlando, Florida 32801 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire John L. Chaves, Esquire Rosanne G. Capeless, Certified Legal Intern Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the comprehensive plan and subsequent remedial plan amendments adopted by Lake County are "in compliance" pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive plans pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, F.S., and Chapter 380, F.S., as it relates to the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. Friends Friends, is a not-for-profit tax exempt membership corporation, founded for the express purpose of overseeing implementation of Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Friends has members who reside in, own property and operate businesses within the County. Friends submitted oral and written objections during the County's review and adoption proceedings. Friends is an "affected person." Friends did not challenge the cumulative notice issued in DOAH Case No. 93-2289GM. Hal Turville owns property and resides in the County. Turville submitted oral and written objections during the review, and adoption proceedings. Turville is an "affected person." Turville did not challenge the cumulative notice issued in DOAH Case No. 93-2289GM. Lake County Conservation Council Council et al. is a not-for-profit Florida corporation whose business is the preservation of the natural resources and the quality of life in the County. Members of the Council submitted oral or written comments during the plan review and adoption proceedings. Council is an "affected person." Council failed to challenge the cumulative notice issued in DOAH Case No. 93-2289GM. The individual Petitioners who sought intervention simultaneous with the Council are all natural persons who own real property and/or conduct business in the County. All Petitioners submitted oral or written objections during the plan review and adoption proceedings. All Petitioners are "affected persons." These Petitioners however, failed to challenge the cumulative notice issued in DOAH Case No. 93-2289GM. CLAUDE SMOAK/LAKE COUNTY CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION/ LAKE COUNTY FARM BUREAU Smoak is a resident and property owner in the County. Smoak submitted written and oral comments during the plan review and adoption proceedings. Smoak is an "affected person." Lake County Cattlemen's Association is a Florida nonprofit membership association which conducts business in the County. The Association, on behalf of its members who own property or conduct business in the County, submitted oral or written comments during the plan review and adoption proceedings. The Association is an "affected person." Lake County Farm Bureau is a Florida nonprofit membership association which also conducts business in the County. The Bureau submitted comments during the plan review andadoption proceedings. The Bureau is an "affected person." 1/ LYKES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et al./DALE LADD, et al./ CHRIS BLANTON, et al. Lykes Development Corporation, et al., Dale Ladd, et al., and Chris Blanton, et al., are owners of real property and/or own and conduct business within the County. Intervenors submitted oral and written comments during the plan review and adoption. Intervenors are "affected persons." LAKE COUNTY Lake County is a local government required to adopt a comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. The County is located in central Florida, with the incorporated City of Tavares being the County seat. The County is bordered by Orange, Seminole and Volusia Counties to the east and northeast; Marion and Sumter Counties to the west and northwest; and Polk County to the South. The County is approximately 1,150 square miles in size, or approximately 736,000 acres. The unincorporated County's population in 1990, including seasonal population, was 123,555, and is projected to be 177,402 by the year 2005. The economy of the County in years past relied upon the citrus industry. Recent freezes, however, caused the loss of approximately 90 per cent of the citrus crop. The County is currently making a transition to a more urban economic base. The County contains many natural resources including the Wekiva River Protection Area, the Ocala National Forest, and the Green Swamp. GREEN SWAMP CONCERNS The primary focus of the challengers' remaining issues concerns the level of protection afforded the Green Swamp. The Green Swamp is approximately 556,000 acres in size, encompassing portions of Lake, Polk, Pasco, Hernando, and Sumter Counties. As of 1974, approximately 200,000 acres of the Green Swamp was in public ownership, either by state agencies, water management districts, local governments, or environmental protection organizations. Of the remaining 356,000 acres, approximately 106,000 acres are located in Lake County. The 106,000 acres within Lake County are comprised of approximately 60 per cent uplands and 40 per cent wetlands and lakes. The Green Swamp is not a continuous expanse of swamp, as its name implies, but instead is a composite of swamps separated by flatwoods, low hills and ridges, and sinkhole lakes. The Green Swamp serves as the headwaters of five major rivers: The Hillsborough, Withlacoochee, Peace, Oklawaha, and Kissimmee Rivers. In the early 1970's, the Florida Legislature designated the Green Swamp, because of its environmental importance and sensitivity, as an Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) under Chapter 380, F.S. The Green Swamp was designated an ACSC due partly to the important role this large relatively undeveloped tract of land plays in the protection of the Floridan Aquifer, the main drinking water source for central and south Florida. The Floridan Aquifer in central Florida particularly, is near land surface and therefore vulnerable to contamination. The potentiometric high or area of the Floridan Aquifer most susceptible to contamination, however, is not found in Lake County but instead is in adjacent Polk County. Other reasons why the Green Swamp was designated as an ACSC include: The abundance and variety of wildlife species and habitat, the important environmental functions played by the wetlands of the Green Swamp, the Green Swamps floodwater retention and treatment capabilities, and as mentioned earlier the Green Swamp's role as the headwaters of five river systems. The Green Swamp is a regionally significant natural resource. The Local Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. (the Act), generally requires at Section 163.3177(6)(d), F.S., that each local government comprehensive plan contain: A conservation element for conservation, use, and protection of natural resources in the area, including air, water, water recharge areas, wetlands, water wells, estuarine, marshes, soils, beaches, shores, floodplains, rivers, bays, lakes, harbors, forests, fisheries and wildlife marine habitat, minerals and other natural and environmental resources. Rule Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., is the minimum criteria rule adopted by the Department to further implement the provisions of the Act. Rule 9J-5.005(1)(b), F.A.C., requires that natural resources be designated on the comprehensive plan's existing land use map. Rule 9J-5.005(4)(b), F.A.C., also requires that natural resources be depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) or map series. Rule 9J-5.005(3)(b)4., F.A.C., further requires that the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) contain one or more specific goals, objectives and policies which ensure the protection of natural resources. GREEN SWAMP/DENSITY Intervenors opine that the County's Comprehensive Plan fails to adequately protect the natural resources associated with the Green Swamp, specifically in the Core Area of the Green Swamp. Intervenors primarily base this assertion on the fact that the County did not incorporate a recommendation found in the Task Force Report, which recommended a core density of one dwelling unit per forty acres (1 du/40 acres). The Task Force Report is a study which was commissioned by the Polk County Board of County Commissioners as part of the final stages of the development of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan. A technical committee was tasked with the responsibility of compiling information concerning the Green Swamp. Representatives of Lake County did not participate in the creation of the Task Force Report, nor did they select any of the representatives who served on the Task Force. Lake County has not had the opportunity to refute the findings of the Task Force or the recommendations of the Task Force Report. While the Task Force Report was not finalized until July of 1992, many of the data sources in the Task Force Report mirror those in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan adopted July 1, 1991. The Task Force Report (p. 14) recommends that in order to adequately protect the Core Area of the Green Swamp, the land use densities in the Core should be in the range of l dwelling unit per 40 acres to l dwelling unit per 160 acres. However, as established at the final hearing, that density is but one planning tool which can be used to protect natural resources and even the Task Force Report recognized that if certain planning controls were implemented other requirements could be relaxed. In protecting the natural resources of the Green Swamp, the County, as a result of the second settlement agreement, adopted a planning approach which separated the Green Swamp into 4 separate land use classifications. The categories include the Ridge Area, Transition Area, Rural Conservation Area and the Core Conservation Area. Depending on the land use classification, the County established the following criteria: Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern: Ridge area: residential densities shall be permitted up to 4 units per acre of uplands. Developments with a density greater than 1 unit per acre must be connected to a regional sewer system, defined as a central sewer system with a capacity of 500,000 GPD or greater. However, a central sewer system having a capacity of at least 100,000 GPD or more may be permitted on a temporary basis until such time as a regional system becomes available. The temporary system shall be staffed by a class C or higher operator for a minimum of three hours per day for five days per week and one visit on each weekend day. Further, these temporary facilities shall be planned, designed, and constructed so that they either serve as the nucleus of a future regional system that later developments will also connect to, or can be abandoned and the system merged into a regional sewer system constructed at another location. The maximum impervious surface system constructed at another location. The maximum impervious surface ratio shall be no greater than 45 percent of the gross development parcel. Maximum building height is 40 feet. Transition area: residential densities shall be permitted up to 1 unit per acre of uplands. The maximum impervious surface ratio shall be no greater than 30 percent of the gross development parcel. Maximum building height is 40 feet. Rural/Conservation: residential densities shall be permitted up to 1 unit per 10 acres of uplands. Core/Conservation: residential densities shall be permitted up to 1 unit per 20 acres of uplands. The County adopted further planning controls to limit development and the types of uses allowed within the boundaries of the Green Swamp, specifically the Core. In specifically addressing the Core, the plan at Policy 1-1.15.11 requires: Core/Conservation: All land uses are allowed within the Core/Conservation land use category except for the following land uses: residential developments over 1 DU/20 AC commercial development industrial development mining, excluding sand mining roadway construction utilizing public funds except paving which may be provided to assure access for emergency vehicles necessary for the protection of the resident's health, safety and welfare. Active Tourist Attraction Based Recreation facilities which include such uses as water slide parks, RV parks, stadiums, racetracks, Jai-Alai frontons, arenas, amusement parks, zoological/ botanical gardens and parks, and aquariums. other active facility based recreation unless provided solely for the purpose of serving the residents within the GSACSC golf courses power plants incinerators Class I, Class II and Class III sanitary landfills as identified in Chapter 17-701, F.A.C. airports as defined in Chapter 9J-5.003(3) F.A.C. Notwithstanding the requirements identified above for the Ridge, Transition, Rural/Conservation and Core Conservation land use categories, Class III sanitary landfills as defined in Chapter 17-702, F.A.C. shall be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit at inactive mine and borrow pit sites as identified on Map I-A. In addition to the foregoing provisions found in Policies 1-1.13 and 1-1.15, the County adopted a limitation on the number of building permits which could be issued on a yearly basis in the Green Swamp (CAPS). The CAPS also place a yearly limitation on the number of lots which can be created. The CAPS are set out as follows: Policy 1-1.12A: As part of the County's efforts to direct growth to the urban land use categories, the County shall limit the number of lots it approves for platting and the number of building permits it issues in the following rural land use categories as follows: LAND USE CATEGORY ANNUAL MAXIMUM LOTS PERMITS Core/Conservation 35 50 Rural/Conservation 60 50 3. Rural Villages 250 200 4. Rural 350 300 In no event shall the total annual maximum of platted lots for all of the land use categories set out above exceed 500 lots or the maximum number of building permits issued in a year exceed 400. As established at hearing, the allowable building permit cap over the planning period, divided into the number of acres in the Core/Conservation and Rural/Conservation areas yields an overall density of one dwelling unit per sixty acres throughout the Core. Actual building densities could be in the range of one dwelling unit per 80 acres. To further limit development, the County adopted minimum open space requirements for all land use categories, including those found in the Green Swamp. The Plan also requires at Conservation Element Policy 7-5.4A minimum wetland buffer requirements for isolated, non isolated and river and stream systems. In FLUE Policy IA-2.9 and Conservation Element Policy 1-2.IE, the plan requires to the extent practicable that wetlands within a project which are to be preserved shall be placed in a conservation easement which shall run in favor of the land. The plan at FLUE Policy 1-2.IC limits the wetland densities which may be transferred to uplands in the Green Swamp. Specifically the policy provides that density in the Green Swamp may be transferred from the wetlands to the uplands portions of a site at a ratio of 1 unit per 20 acres. For development in the Green Swamp which uses septic tanks, the plan at Policy 1A-2.8 establishes stringent septic tank requirements which include the periodic mandatory monitoring of septic tank systems. In addition to the above-referenced policies, the County adopted plan provisions which address the protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat within the Green Swamp and county-wide. These provisions include Conservation Policies 7-6, 7-7, 7-8 and FLUE Policies 1A-1.3:7 and 1A-2.2:7. Through the above referenced policies and requirements, the County put forth a comprehensive approach to protecting the natural resources of the Green Swamp. The County's approach does not rely solely on a density limitation, but also incorporates various planning controls in conjunction with the four Green Swamp land use designations found on the FLUM. The County's approach is consistent with and provides more protection than the 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres density limitation and other requirements suggested by Intervenors. GREEN SWAMP BOUNDARY DESIGNATIONS Intervenors assert that the County's designation of the Core area of the Green Swamp on the FLUM is incorrect solely because the boundaries of the Core follow section lines and not the natural resource characteristics of the Core. The Act at Section 163.3177(6)(d), F.S., requires that the land use map or map series generally identify and depict natural resources. The Act also, at Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S., requires that the identification and depiction of natural resources be based upon surveys, studies and data regarding the area. Rule 9J-5.006(1)(b), F.A.C., requires among other things, that rivers, bays, lakes, floodplains, and wetlands shall be shown on the existing land use map or map series. Rule 9J-5.006(4)(b), F.A.C., makes these mapping requirements applicable to the FLUM. The Act as well as the Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., generally requires that the FLUM, and the designations on it, be based on appropriate data and analysis. In depicting the Green Swamp on the FLUM, the County initially analyzed the maps found in the adopted plan's data. This data included generalized maps prepared by several state and federal agencies. These maps were consistent with and in most cases mirrored those used by Intervenors in developing their depiction of the Green Swamp boundaries. These maps include but are not limited to: A Floodplains Map, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a Wetlands Map prepared by the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC), maps showing lakes, and major drainage basins prepared by the County, using information provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), a Generalized Soils Map prepared by the County using information prepared by the Lake County Soils Conservation Service (SCS), Natural Communities Maps prepared by the Center for Wetlands Land Cover, Groundwater Resource Maps prepared by the County using information from the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), Groundwater Pollution Potential Maps, prepared using DRASTIC information from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Potentiometric Surface Maps prepared using information by the USGS and SJRWMD. Based on these maps as well as those maps found in the 1974 Green Swamp Report, the County began preparation of the boundaries which comprise the land use categories of the Green Swamp. Because of the increased development limitations imposed by the Core/Conservation Area, the County took the additional step of "ground truthing" the boundaries of the Core Area. The County's purpose in ground truthing was to make the Core boundary as accurate as possible. Based on this additional step, the County determined the boundaries of the Core. The boundaries were not at major variance from already established section lines and the County therefore, used these section lines to delineate the Core. The section lines relate to the natural resources actually on the ground. In any event, the natural resources (wetlands) which Intervenors are concerned with, based on the plan policies referenced earlier, will receive adequate protection regardless of whether they fall within the Core/Conservation land use category or the Rural/Conservation land use category. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION Intervenors allege that Lake County has failed to coordinate with adjacent local governments concerning the protection of the Green Swamp and that a commission ought to be established consisting of representatives from the several local governments in which the Green Swamp is located. This Commission's sole responsibility would be to coordinate further protection of the Green Swamp. The Act at Section 163.3177(6)(h), F.S., requires the comprehensive plans to include: An intergovernmental coordination element showing relationships and standing principles and guidelines to be used in the accomplishment of coordination of the adopted comprehensive plan with the plans of school boards and other units of local government providing services but not having regulatory authority over the use of land, with the comprehensive plans of adjacent municipalities, the County, adjacent counties, or the region, and with the state comprehensive plan, as the case may require and as such adopted plans or plans in preparation may exist. This element of the local comprehensive plan shall demonstrate consideration of the particular effects of the local plan, when adopted, upon the development of adjacent municipalities, the County, adjacent counties, or the region or on the state comprehensive plan, as the case may require. Rule 9J-5.015(3), F.A.C., goes on to require the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to contain goals, objectives and policies which coordinate the County's comprehensive plan and the development impacts which may occur with the comprehensive plans and potential development impacts of adjacent local governments. Rule 9J-5.015(2)(d), F.A.C., also requires the coordination of the County's plan with the rules, principles for guiding development, and development regulations in any designated area of critical state concern. (Rule 9J-5.015(3)(a-c), F.A.C.) The County has adopted an Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Goal 9 clearly provides that the purpose of the element is: To foster improved governmental efficiency and effectiveness and resolve incompatibilities or conflicts through mechanisms which encourage cooperation, communication and coordination between Lake County and its municipalities, adjacent governments, regional, state, and federal government and quasi government entities in order to establish improved growth management, development activities and natural resource conservation. The Element also contains policies and objectives which address the county's communication and coordination with various entities including adjacent counties. Specifically at Objective 9-10 the adopted plan provides: Lake County shall coordinate with its seven adjacent counties on comprehensive planning issues such as land use activities and public programs which would affect either Lake County or the adjacent county. The element also includes Policy 9-10.1 which provides: Upon Comprehensive Plan adoption, Lake County shall institute a program whereby a request will be made to the seven adjacent counties for Lake County to received and review the comprehensive plans and proposed plan amendments for impacts to Lake County which are or may be inconsistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies. The County shall reciprocate by forwarding its comprehensive plan and plan amendments to the adjacent counties. Any conflicts arising from this exchange of informa- tion shall be handled amongst the parties or through the informal mediation process outlined above in Policy 9-9.1. Policy 9-10.2, further provides: Lake County shall coordinate growth management issues which overlap jurisdiction boundaries through cooperative communications with the staff and appropriate officials by presenting Lake County concerns through documented trans- mittals, scheduled meetings, attendance at public hearings, joint and hoc technical coordination committees, and, where relevant, less formal communications. The County shall reciprocate by notifying the adjacent counties' staff and officials of functions where their attendance is warranted. Growth management issues to be pursued, but are not limited to, consist of the following: Continued participation in the four corners group meetings between Polk, Orange, Osceola, and the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Continued coordination between Sumter County on the proposed Federal Prison; Marion and Sumter Counties on development patterns and their effects on levels of service on the Lake County portion of U.S. 27/S.R. 500; Seminole and Orange Counties (and the Orlando/Orange County Expressway Authority) on the proposed Northwest Beltway and the resource management of the Wekiva River Protection Area; Seminole County on the expansion of the airport and the proposed mall in the Sanford Area; Orange County and the Florida Turnpike; Orange, Osceola, and Polk counties and the RCID on the ever expanding tourist commercial center, Polk County on the development pattern on South U.S. 27 and issues related to the Green Swamp ACSC. While Intervenors suggested that the plan establish a committee whose purpose is to better review development within the Green Swamp, the testimony at the final hearing establishes that such an endeavor could not be mandated through a plan's Intergovernmental Coordination Element. In addressing coordination with the principles for guiding development pursuant to Rule 9J-5.015(2)(d), F.A.C., the FLUE at Policy 1-17-2 provides: Residential development in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern shall conform to the regulatory guidelines and objectives outlined in the Principles for Guiding Development for the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. Policy 1-17.5 goes on to adopt the language of Rule 28-26, F.A.C., which contains the Principles for Guiding Development. As with all other plan provisions all development must be consistent with these policies and therefore also, consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the GSACSC. URBAN SPRAWL/MULTIPLIER Intervenors allege that the plan fails to discourage urban sprawl specifically in the Green Swamp and generally Countywide. As justification for this allegation Intervenors assert that the data used to analyze future needs did not include certain vested developments and also that the "multiplier" was calculated in an incorrect manner. Generally, the Act, the State Comprehensive Plan, and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., require that each comprehensive plan should work to discourage urban sprawl. In addressing these requirements, the County adopted a new FLUM which encouraged development to occur adjacent to existing municipalities and areas where services were available to support future development. The revised FLUM works to discourage urban sprawl. In addition, the FLUM was also revised to provide a clearer separation of urban and rural land uses which is another way in which a plan discourages urban sprawl. This was accomplished by the elimination of the Semi-Rural land use category and the reduction in densities in the Urban, Urban Expansion, Suburban, Rural Village and Rural land use categories. In a further effort to discourage urban sprawl the County adopted plan provisions which serve to direct growth to the more urban areas of the County and ensure that such development occurs in a timely manner. For example, the amount of building permits issued per year in the Core Conservation, Rural Conservation, Rural Villages, and Rural land use categories is limited. In addition, the plan establishes criteria concerning the provision of sanitary sewer in the Urban and Urban expansion areas which require either a public or private sewer systems to be in existence before development can occur in these areas. Further, the plan specifically provides guidance and timing criteria for the location of development within the Suburban land use designation. Based on the plan provisions and the requirements found therein it is clear that the plan discourages urban sprawl. In addressing the issues raised concerning the multiplier, testimony at hearing establishes that developing a multiplier is more an art than a science. Generally, a multiplier is a calculation which analyses many factors including total projected population, densities established on the FLUM, projected need and projected growth. Based on these factors, the calculation yields a percentage of future development that will be allowed or allocated over the planning period. An unusually high multiplier may indicate that a plan fails to discourage urban sprawl. A local government, to allow some degree of development flexibility in the plan, will allocate more land than is actually needed. The overall multiplier calculated by the County was approximately 4.88. The multiplier was calculated using acceptable professional planning methodologies and is well within the range of the multipliers for plans of other counties found acceptable by the Department. This is especially true when the multiplier is considered in combination with the planning controls and limitations discussed earlier. The multiplier does not indicate a failure to discourage urban sprawl. MINING Intervenors allege that the plan fails to meet the statutory and rule requirements concerning the protection of natural resources from the adverse impacts of mineral extraction. As discussed earlier the Act and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., generally require that a comprehensive plan must address the protection of natural resources. The Act also mandates that plan must be consistent with the requirements of Chapter 187, F.S., the State Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 187, F.S., specifically at Section 187.201(14)(a), F.S., establishes as a goal the following: Florida shall protect its air, land, and water resources from the adverse effects of resource extraction and ensure that the disturbed areas are reclaimed or restored to beneficial use as soon as reasonably possible. Section 187.201(14)(b)5., F.S., goes on to implement this by requiring the prohibition of: resource extraction which will result in an adverse effect on environmentally sensitive areas of the state which cannot be restored. The plan at Objective 7-13 provides: The County shall regulate extraction activities to minimize any adverse impacts to the quality of the air, surface waters, groundwaters, land and wildlife. Policy 7-13.1 goes on to establish a prohibition of mining in specified areas in the County. In relevant part, the Policy prohibits: [M]ineral extraction in the environmentally sensitive areas of the County which cannot be restored. Areas within Lake County which fall in this include, but are not limited to, the limestone deposits within the Green Swamp Wildlife Management Area and the Okahumpka Swamp, . . . Policies 7-13.2 through 7-13.11 further provide mining criteria which address mining in other natural resources such as prime aquifer recharge areas. The plan clearly contains policies and objectives which address the protection of natural resources from the adverse impacts which may result from mining.
Recommendation It is recommended that a final order be entered finding that the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, as subsequently amended, is "in compliance". DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings 10th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in accordance with requirements of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes. Proposed Findings of Fact filed by 1000 Friends. 1.-2. Adopted. 3.-4. Rejected, relevance. 5.-12. Rejected, recitation of testimony, relevance. 13.-14. Rejected, relevance. 15.-16. Rejected, subordinate, relevance. 17.-18. Rejected, recitation. 19. Rejected, relevance. 20.-23. Adopted by reference. 24.-47. Rejected, these findings basically recite page numbers and quotations from the data and analysis accompanying the adopted plan. 48.-49. Adopted in principle, although not verbatim. 50.-59. Rejected, cumulative. 60.-64. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer findings. 65. Rejected, relevance. 66.-72. Rejected, see hearing officer ruling with regard to the task force report. Otherwise, these proposed findings are subordinate to findings of the hearing officer. 73.-74. Rejected, inadequate reference to source. 75.-80. Rejected, see hearing officer ruling with regard to the task force report. Otherwise, these proposed findings are subordinate to findings of the hearing officer. 81.-85. Rejected, cumulative. 86.-92. Rejected, relevance. 93.-104. Rejected, see previous ruling regarding admissibility of the content of the task force report; further the proposed findings are cumulative and subordinate to hearing officer findings. 105.-106. Rejected, relevance. 107.-117. Rejected, cumulative, argumentative and subordinate. Accepted. Rejected, relevance. Accepted. 121.-136. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer's findings. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, relevance. 139.-140. Adopted, but not verbatim. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer's findings in this point. Rejected, relevance. 143.-148. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer's findings. 149.-153. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 154.-155. Rejected, relevance. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, see previous ruling regarding the task force report. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer's finding. Also, see previous ruling regarding task force report. Rejected, opinion. Rejected, legal argument. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Adopted. 163. Rejected, recitation of testimony. 164.-166. Rejected, argumentative. 167.-169. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer's findings. 170. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 171. Accepted as regards the first sentence. The remainder of this finding is rejected as argumentative. 172.-173. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, subjective and opinion. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, argumentative. 177.-178. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 179.-180. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer's findings. 181. Rejected, argumentative. 182.-184. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer's findings. Rejected, no supported by weight of the evidence. Rejected, hearsay. 187.-188. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, opinion. Accepted. 191.-192. Rejected, cumulative and theoretical. The addition of a policy to the plan requiring the establishment of such a board would not make it so since Lake County would not have the authority to implement such a provision. 193.-194. Rejected, opinion and relevance. Proposed Findings of Fact filed by The Lake County Conservation Counsel. Accepted. Rejected, inadequate citation of record source. Accepted. 4.-5. Rejected, inadequate citation to record source. Accepted, though not verbatim. Rejected, inadequate citation to record source. 8.-14. Rejected, proposed findings appear directed to the March 1993, amended plan. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, inadequate citation to record source. Rejected, argumentative and inadequate citation to record source. Rejected, conclusion of law. Rejected, argumentative and conclusionary. Rejected, conclusion of law. 21.-22 Rejected, relevance. 23.-27. Rejected, argumentative, inadequate cite to record source and relevance. Rejected, relevance. Rejected, argument. 30.-31. Rejected, relevance. 32. Rejected, argumentative and lack of relevance. 33.-35. Rejected, relevance. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Accepted as to first sentence. Rejected as to remainder. Rejected, lack of adequate citation to record source. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, legal conclusion. Rejected, argumentative and lack of adequate citation to record source. 41.-47. Rejected, relevance. 48. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 49.-50. Rejected, relevance. 51.-52. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 53. Accepted. 54.-55. Accepted in substance, although it is recognized that the Lake Wells Ridge runs through a large area of Florida and not just Lake County. 56. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Intervenor, Lykes Development Corp., et al., Dale Ladd, et al., and Chris Blanton, et al. Counsel for these Intervenors submitted a proposed recommended order of twenty-seven pages. Pages 16 through 24 of that proposed recommended order, contains unnumbered paragraphs and quoted material addressing proposed findings of fact. The proposed recommended order has been reviewed and to the extent possible, addressed by the findings of fact set forth in this recommended order. Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Lake County. Counsel for Lake County submitted a proposed recommended order consisting of twenty-three pages. The paragraphs were unnumbered and were not confined to proposed findings and proposed conclusions of law. However, the entire proposed recommended order has been reviewed and, to the extent possible, addressed by the findings of fact contained in this recommended order. Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs. Petitioner Department of Community Affairs submitted forty-eight numbered paragraphs in the proposed findings of fact of their proposed recommended order. Those proposed findings are treated as follows: 1.-29. Accepted, although not necessarily verbatim. 30. Accepted, although substantially restated to eliminate surplusage and unnecessary statements. 31.-48. Accepted in substance. Copies furnished: Terrell K. Arline Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Thomas A. Cloud Gray Harris et al. P. O. Box 3068 Orlando, FL 32802-3068 Frank Gaylord Post Office Box 7800 Tavares, FL 32778-7800 Jacob D. Varn, Esquire Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Richard Grosso, Esquire 1000 Friends of Florida Civil Law Clinic NOVA Southeastern University 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 Rolon W. Reed, Esquire P.O. Box 565 Lake Jem, FL 32745 Claude Smoak 8810 County Road 561 Clermont, FL 34711 Lake County Cattlemen's Association 21335 Wiygul Road Umatilla, FL 32784 Lake County Farm Bureau 30241 State Road 19 Tavares, FL 32778 Cecelia Bonifay Attorney at Law Post Office Box 39 Tavares, FL 32778
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent owns real property located in Township 2 North, Range 7 East, Section 32, in Madison County, Florida, that has surface water flowing through it and is encompassed within what is defined as "wetlands." Respondent is in control and possession of the property in question and all work on the property that is material to this proceeding is under the control or direction of the Respondent. There were access roads on the property as early as 1973 as reflected by Respondent's exhibit 2, a 1973 aerial photograph, but the width of the roads or the existence of ditches or culverts cannot be determined from the photograph. Petitioner's exhibit 2, a 1981 aerial photograph, shows the roads still in existence in 1981 but the width of the roads or existence of ditches or culverts cannot be determined from the photograph. Sometime before the Respondent purchased the property and began construction to expand the roads, ditches and culverts were in place; however, there was no evidence as to when the ditches and culverts came to be in place. A 1976 survey of the property reflects 60 foot roads which were to provide access to platted but unrecorded lots. These roads had not been constructed when Respondent purchased the property or began construction to expand the roads. The newly constructed portions of the road indicates an attempt to build the roads in accordance with the 1976 survey. The previously existing roads attempted to follow the natural contour of the land and as a result were not always straight, and only had a negligible effect on the flow or storage of surface water in regard to the property. Sometime around October 1987, Respondent began to rebuild and construct roads on the property by straightening existing curves, removing fill material from adjacent wetlands to widen and heighten the existing roadbed or construct a new roadbed, and to increase the depth and width of existing ditches or dig new ditches. The initial portion of the existing road providing access to the property from the county graded road has been substantially rebuilt with portion of the roadbed being 40 to 43 feet wide. Ditches along this portion of the roadbed have had their width increased up to 14 feet and their depth increased up to 6 and 8 feet. Other portions of the road has been expanded beyond the previously existing roadbed by increasing the width and height of the roadbed. The increased size of the ditches and the expanded roadbed has increased the interception of surface water above that already being intercepted by the previous roadbed and ditches and, as a result, there is an increased amount of surface water impounded or obstructed. The effect is that surface water is removed from Respondent's property at a faster rate than before road construction began and, as a result, sheet flow of surface water is decreased which diminishes the storage of surface water on the property. Although new culverts were installed during road construction, there was insufficient evidence to show that these new culverts were in addition to the culverts already in place or if they replaced old culverts. There was insufficient evidence to show that the new culverts allowed water to flow in a different direction or be removed from the property at a faster rate than before or if they impounded or obstructed surface water more so than before. The previously existing roads had sufficiently served an earlier timber harvest on the property and, by Respondent's own testimony, were sufficient for his ongoing hog and goat operation. The extensive rebuilding and constructing of roads in this case was neither necessary nor a customary practice for construction of farm access roads in this area. Respondent is engaged in the occupation of agriculture in that he has a bona fide hog and goat operation. However, Respondent's silviculture occupation is somewhat limited in that he is presently harvesting the timber but shows no indication of replanting or continuing the forestry operation upon completing the present harvesting operation. The extensive rebuilding and constructing of roads in this case goes beyond what is necessary or is the customary practice in the area for a hog or goat operation or forestry operation such as Respondent's and is inconsistent with this type of agriculture or silviculture occupation. Respondent has never applied for nor received a surface water management permit from the Petitioner even though the Petitioner has informed Respondent that a permit was required for the work being done on his property. The present alteration of the topography of the land by Respondent has obstructed and impounded surface water in such a fashion that the interruption of the sheet flow of surface water has been increased, causing the storage of surface water on the property to be diminished. At the present time, Respondent has been enjoined by the Circuit Court of Madison County, Florida, from any further activity on this project. However, should Respondent be allowed to complete this project, it is evident that the sole and predominant purpose would be to impound and obstruct the sheet flow of surface water and diminish the storage of surface water on the property in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Suwannee River Management District, enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, Norman Leonard, to: (a) remove all unauthorized fill material placed within jurisdictional wetlands and return those areas to predevelopment grades and revegetate with naturally occurring local wetlands species to prevent erosion; (b) back fill excavated swale ditches, return road beds and excavated ditches to predevelopment condition and grades and seed disturbed non-wetland areas with a 50:50 mix of bahia and rye grass and; (c) refrain from any other development until and unless a required permit is obtained for such development. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1445 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2.-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 4.-7. Are unnecessary findings for this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as conclusions of law. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 17. 26.-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 31.-32. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 35.-38. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 39.-42. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1. The first paragraph adopted in Finding of Fact 16. The balance is rejected as a conclusion of law. 2.-3. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Not a finding of fact but a statement of testimony. However, it is subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The more credible evidence is contrary to this finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice F. Baker, Esquire Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 Norman Leonard, Pro Se Route 2, Box 172-D Live Oak, Florida 32060 Donald O. Morgan Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District Route 3, Box 64 Live Oak, Florida Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and under what conditions, the Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), should grant Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 40-109-81153-1 authorizing Respondents, Jay and Linda Ginn (Ginns or Applicants), to construct a 136-unit single-family residential development with associated surface water management system.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Proposed Project Respondent, the District, is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce the cited statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rules promulgated by the District under the authority of those statutes. (Unless otherwise stated, all Florida Statutes refer to the 2003 codification, and all Florida Administrative Code Rules refer to the current codification.) Respondents, Jay and Linda Ginn, are the owners of 47 acres of land located just west of the City of St. Augustine in St. Johns County, Florida. They are seeking ERP Permit No. 40- 109-81153-1 from the District to construct a 136-acre residential community and associated surface water management facilities on the property, to be known as Ravenswood Forest. The 47-acre project site is predominantly uplands, with a large (10.98-acre) wetland (Wetland 1) located on the eastern boundary and completely separating the uplands on the project site from adjacent properties to the east. While the central portion of the site is mostly a sand pine vegetated community, and the western portion is largely a pine flatwood community, there are six other smaller wetlands scattered within the upland areas lying west of Wetland 1, each numbered separately, 2 through 7. The site is currently undeveloped except for some cleared areas that are used as dirt road trails and a borrow pit or pond excavated in the central part of the site. This clearing and excavation was accomplished in the 1980’s for a project that was never completed. The project site is bordered on the north by Ravenswood Drive. On the east lies an existing residential development probably constructed in the 1970’s; to the west of the project site is a power-line easement; and to the south is a Time Warner cable facility. The land elevations at the project site are generally higher on the west and slope off to Wetland 1 on the east. Under current conditions, water generally drains from west to east into Wetland 1. Some water from the site, as well as some water entering the site from off-site properties to the west, flows into the existing pond or borrow pit located in the central portion of the site. Under extreme rainfall conditions, the borrow pit/pond can reach a stage that allows it to overflow and discharge into Wetland 1. Some off-site water also enters Wetland 1 at its north end. Water that originates from properties to the west of the Ravenswood site is conveyed through ditches to the roadside ditch that runs along the south side of Ravenswood Drive. Water in this roadside ditch ultimately enters Wetland 1 at its north end and flows south. Once in Wetland 1, water moves north to south. Water leaves the part of Wetland 1 that is located on the Ravenswood site and continues to flow south through ditches and culverts ultimately to the San Sebastian River. The Wetland 1 system is contiguous with wetlands located on property owned by Petitioner, Marilyn McMulkin. Mrs. McMulkin lives on Hibiscus Street to the east of the project. Mrs. McMulkin is disabled and enjoys observing wildlife from her home. Mrs. McMulkin has observed woodstorks, kites, deer, cardinals, birds, otter, indigo snake, flying squirrels, gopher tortoises, and (more recently) bald eagles on her property or around the neighborhood. Mrs. McMulkin informed the District of the presence of the bald eagle in 2002, but it was not discovered until November of 2003 that there was an eagle nest on the Ginns property in Wetland 1. Petitioner, Diane Mills, owns a house and property on Hibiscus Street to the east of the Project. The proposed stormwater discharge for the Project is to a wetland system that is contiguous with a wetland system that is in close proximity to Mrs. Mills' property. Petitioners' property is not located in a flood plain identified by FEMA. Nevertheless, Petitioners' property experiences flooding. At times, the flooding has come through Mrs. McMulkin's house and exited out the front door. The flood water, which can be 18-24 inches high in some places on Mrs. McMulkin's property, comes across her backyard, goes through or around her house, enters Hibiscus Street and turns north. The flooding started in the late 1980's and comes from the north and west, from the Ginns' property. The flooding started after Mr. Clyatt Powell, a previous co-owner of the Ravenswood property, started clearing and creating fill roads on the property using dirt excavated from the property. The flooding now occurs every year and has increased in duration and frequency; the flooding gets worse after the rain stops and hours pass. The evidence, including Petitioners' Exhibit 1, indicated that there are numerous other possible reasons, besides activities on the Ginns' property in the late 1980's, for the onset and exacerbation of Petitioners' flooding problems, including: failure to properly maintain existing drainage facilities; other development in the area; and failure to improve drainage facilities as development proceeds. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners have standing to object to ERP Permit No. 40-109-81153-1. Project Description As indicated, water that originates west of the project site currently enters the project site in two ways: (1) it moves across the western project boundary; and (2) it travels north to a ditch located on the south side of Ravenswood Drive and is conveyed to Wetland 1. The offsite water that moves across the western project boundary comes from a 16-acre area identified as Basin C (called Basin 4 post-development). The offsite water that moves north to the ditch and enters Wetland 1 comes from a 106.87-acre area identified as Basin D (called Basin 5 post-development). The project’s stormwater conveyance and treatment facilities include two connected wet detention ponds with an outfall to a wetland on the eastern portion of the project site. Stormwater from most of the project site will be conveyed to a pond, or detention area (DA) DA-1, which will be located near (and partially coinciding with the location of) the existing pond or borrow pit. The water elevation in DA-1 will be controlled at a level of 26 feet. Water from DA-1 will spill over through a control structure into a pipe that will convey the spill-over to DA-2. In addition to the spill-over from DA-1, offsite water that currently enters the project site across the western boundary will be conveyed to a wetland area at the southwest corner of the project site. At that point, some of the water will be taken into DA-2 through an inlet structure. The water elevation in DA-2 will be controlled at level 21. Water from DA-2 will be released by a control structure to a spreader swale in Wetland 1. While some of the water conveyed to the wetland area at the southwest corner of the project site will enter DA-2, as described, some will discharge over an irregular weir (a low area that holds water until it stages up and flows out) and move around the southern boundary of the project site and flow east into Wetland 1. Wetland 1 is a 10.98-acre onsite portion of a larger offsite wetland area extending to the south and east (which includes the wetlands on Mrs. McMulkin's property). For purposes of an Overall Watershed Study performed by the Ginns' engineering consultant, the combined onsite and offsite wetlands was designated Node 98 (pre-development) and Node 99 (post- development). From those areas, water drains south to ditches and culverts and eventually to the San Sebastian River. Best management practices will be used during project construction to address erosion and sediment control. Such measures will include silt fences around the construction site, hay bales in ditches and inlets, and maintenance of construction equipment to prevent release of pollutants, and may include staked sod on banks and turbidity barriers, if needed. In addition, the District's TSR imposed permit conditions that require erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented. The District's TSR also imposed a permit condition that requires District approval of a dewatering plan within 30 days of permit issuance and prior to construction. The Ginns intend to retain the dewatering from construction on the project site. Wetland Impacts Onsite Wetlands Wetland 1 is a 10.98-acre mixed-forested wetland system. Its overall condition is good. It has a variety of vegetative strata, a mature canopy, dense understory and groundcover, open water areas, and permanent water of varying levels over the course of a year. These attributes allow for species diversity. Although surrounded by development, the wetland is a good source for a variety of species to forage, breed, nest, and roost. In terms of vegetation, the wetland is not unique to northeast Florida, but in November 2003 an eagle nest was discovered in it. A second wetland area onsite (Wetland 2) is a 0.29-acre coniferous depression located near the western boundary of the site. The overall value of the functions provided by Wetland 2 is minimal or low. It has a fairly sparse pine canopy and scattered ferns provide for little refuge and nesting. Water does stand in it, but not for extended periods of time, which does not allow for breeding of most amphibians. The vegetation and inundation do not foster lower trophic animals. For that reason, although the semi-open canopy would be conducive to use by woodstorks, birds and small mammals do not forage there. A third wetland area onsite (Wetland 3) is a 0.28-acre mixed-forested wetland on the northern portion of the site. The quality of Wetland 3 is low. A 24-inch culvert drains the area into a 600-foot long drainage ditch along the south side of Ravenswood Drive leading to Wetland 1. As a result, its hydroperiod is reduced and, although it has a healthy pine and cypress canopy, it also has invasive Chinese tallow and upland species, along with some maple. The mature canopy and its proximity to Ravenswood Drive would allow for nesting, but no use of the wetland by listed species has been observed. In order to return Wetland 3 to being productive, its hydroperiod would have to be restored by eliminating the connection to the Ravenswood Drive ditch. A fourth wetland area onsite (Wetland 4) is a 0.01- acre portion of a mixed-forested wetland on the western boundary of the site that extends offsite to the west. Its value is poor because: a power line easement runs through it; it has been used as a trail road, so it is void of vegetation; and it is such a small fringe of an offsite wetland that it does not provide much habitat value. A fifth wetland area onsite (Wetland 5) is a 0.01-acre portion of the same offsite mixed-forested wetland that Wetland 4 is part of. Wetland 5 has a cleared trail road through its upland fringe. Wetland 5 has moderate value. It is vegetated except on its upland side (although its vegetation is not unique to northeast Florida), has a nice canopy, and provides fish and wildlife value (although not as much as the interior of the offsite wetland). A sixth wetland area onsite (Wetland 6) is a 0.28-acre wetland located in the western portion of the site. It is a depression with a coniferous-dominated canopy with some bays and a sparse understory of ferns and cord grass that is of moderate value overall. It does not connect with any other wetlands by standing or flowing water and is not unique. It has water in it sufficient to allow breeding, so there would be foraging in it. Although not discovered by the Ginns' consultants initially, a great blue heron has been observed utilizing the wetland. No listed species have been observed using it. Wetland 6 could be good gopher frog habitat due to its isolation near uplands and its intermittent inundation, limiting predation by fish. In addition, four gopher tortoise burrows have been identified in uplands on the project site, and gopher frogs use gopher tortoise burrows. The gopher frog is not a listed species; the gopher tortoise is listed by the State of Florida as a species of special concern but is not aquatic or wetland-dependent. Woodstorks are listed as endangered. Although no woodstorks were observed using Wetland 6, they rely on isolated wetlands drying down to concentrate fish and prey in the isolated wetlands. With its semi-open canopy, Wetland 6 could be used by woodstorks, which have a wingspan similar to great blue herons, which were seen using Wetland 6. However, Wetland would not provide a significant food source for wading birds such as woodstorks. The other surface water area onsite (Wetland 7) is the existing 0.97-acre pond or borrow pit in the southwest portion of the project site. The pond is man-made with a narrow littoral shelf dominated by torpedo grass; levels appears to fluctuate as groundwater does; and it is not unique. It connects to Wetland 1 during seasonal high water. It has some fish, but the steep slope to its littoral shelf minimizes the shelf's value for fish, tadpoles, and larvae stage for amphibians because fish can forage easily on the shelf. The Ginns propose to fill Wetlands 2, 3, 4, and 6; to not impact Wetland 5; and to fill a 0.45-acre portion of Wetland and dredge the remaining part into DA-1. Also, 0.18 acre of Wetland 1 (0.03 acre is offsite) will be temporarily disturbed during installation of the utility lines to provide service to the project. Individually and cumulatively, the wetlands that are less than 0.5-acre--Wetlands 3, 6, 2, 4, and 5--are low quality and not more than minimal value to fish and wildlife except for Wetland 5, because it is a viable part of an offsite wetland with value. While the Ginns have sought a permit to fill Wetland 4, they actually do not intend to fill it. Instead, they will simply treat the wetland as filled for the purpose of avoiding a County requirement of providing a wetland buffer and setback, which would inhibit the development of three lots. Offsite Wetlands The proposed project would not be expected to have an impact on offsite wetlands. Neither DA-1 nor DA-2, especially with the special conditions imposed by the District, will draw down offsite wetlands. The seasonal high water (SHW) table in the area of DA- 1 is estimated at elevation 26 to 29. With a SHW table of 26, DA-1 will not influence groundwater. Even with a SHW table of 29, DA-1 will not influence the groundwater beyond the project's western boundary. DA-1 will not adversely affect offsite wetlands. A MODFLOW model was run to demonstrate the influence of DA-1 on nearby wetlands assuming that DA-1 would be controlled at elevation 21, that the groundwater elevation was 29, and that no cutoff wall or liner would be present. The model results demonstrated that the influence of DA-1 on groundwater would barely extend offsite. The current proposed elevation for DA-1 is 26, which is higher than the elevation used in the model and which would result in less influence on groundwater. The seasonal high water table in the area of DA-2 is 28.5 to 29.5. A cutoff wall is proposed to be installed around the western portion of DA-2 to prevent it from drawing down the water levels in the adjacent wetlands such that the wetlands would be adversely affected. The vertical cutoff wall will be constructed of clay and will extend from the land surface down to an existing horizontal layer of relatively impermeable soil called hardpan. The cutoff wall tied into the hardpan would act as a barrier to vertical and horizontal groundwater flow, essentially severing the flow. A MODFLOW model demonstrated that DA-2 with the cutoff wall will not draw down the adjacent wetlands. The blow counts shown on the boring logs and the permeability rates of soils at the proposed location of DA-2 indicate the presence of hardpan. The hardpan is present in the area of DA-2 at approximately 10 to 15 feet below the land surface. The thickness of the hardpan layer is at least 5 feet. The Ginns measured the permeability of hardpan in various locations on the project site. The cutoff wall design is based on tying into a hardpan layer with a permeability of 0.052 feet per day. Because permeability may vary across the project site, the District recommended a permit condition that would require a professional engineer to test for the presence and permeability of the hardpan along the length of the cutoff wall. If the hardpan is not continuous, or if its permeability is higher than 0.052 feet per day, then a liner will be required to be installed instead of a cutoff wall. The liner would be installed under the western third of DA-2, west of a north-south line connecting the easterly ends of the cutoff wall. (The location of the liner is indicated in yellow on Applicants' Exhibit 5B, sheet 8, and is described in District Exhibit 10.) The liner would be 2 feet thick and constructed of clay with a permeability of no more than 1 x 10-6 centimeters per second. A liner on a portion of the bottom of pond DA-2 will horizontally sever a portion of the pond bottom from the groundwater to negate the influence of DA-2 on groundwater in the area. A clay liner would function to prevent adverse drawdown impacts to adjacent wetlands. The project, with either a cutoff wall or a clay liner, will not result in a drawdown of the groundwater table such that adjacent wetlands would be adversely affected. Reduction and Elimination of Impacts The Ginns evaluated practicable design alternatives for eliminating the temporary impact to 0.18-acre of Wetland 1. The analysis indicated that routing the proposed utility services around the project site was possible but would require a lift station that would cost approximately $80,000 to $100,000. The impact avoided is a temporary impact; it is likely that the area to be impacted can be successfully reestablished and restored; and preservation of Wetland 1 is proposed to address lag-time for reestablishment. It was determined by the Ginns and District staff that the costs of avoidance outweigh the environmental benefits of avoidance. Petitioners put on evidence to question the validity of the Wetland 1 reduction/elimination analysis. First, Mr. Mills, who has experience installing sewer/water pipes, testified to his belief that a lift station would cost only approximately $50,000 to $60,000. He also pointed out that using a lift station and forced main method would make it approximately a third less expensive per linear foot to install the pipe line itself. This is because a gravity sewer, which would be required if a lift station and forced main is not used, must be laid at precise grades, making it is more difficult and costly to lay. However, Mr. Mills acknowledged that, due to the relatively narrow width of the right-of-way along Ravenswood Drive, it would be necessary to obtain a waiver of the usual requirement to separate the sewer and water lines by at least 10 feet. He thought that a five-foot separation waiver would be possible for his proposed alternative route if the "horizontal" separation was at least 18 inches. (It is not clear what Mr. Mills meant by "horizontal.") In addition, he did not analyze how the per-linear-foot cost savings from use of the lift station and forced main sewer would compare to the additional cost of the lift station, even if it is just $50,000 to $60,000, as he thinks. However, it would appear that his proposed alternative route is approximately three times as long as the route proposed by the Ginns, so that the total cost of laying the sewer pipeline itself would be approximately equal under either proposal. Mr. Mills's testimony also suggested that the Ginns did not account for the possible disturbance to the Ravenswood eagles if an emergency repair to the water/sewer is necessary during nesting season. While this is a possibility, it is speculative. There is no reason to think such emergency repairs will be necessary, at least during the approximately 20-year life expectancy of the water/sewer line. Practicable design modifications to avoid filling Wetland 4 also were evaluated. Not filling Wetland 4 would trigger St. Johns County wetland setback requirements that would eliminate three building lots, at a cost of $4,684 per lot. Meanwhile, the impacted wetland is small and of poor quality, and the filling of Wetland 4 can be offset by proposed mitigation. As a result, the costs of avoidance outweigh the environmental benefits of avoidance. Relying on ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 the Ginns did not perform reduction/elimination analyses for Wetlands 2 and 6, and the District did not require them. As explained in testimony, the District interprets ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1 to require a reduction/elimination analysis only when a project will result in adverse impacts such that it does not meet the requirements of ERP-A.H. 12.2.2 through 12.2.3.7 and 12.2.5 through 12.3.8. But ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 does not require compliance with those sections for regulated activities in isolated wetlands less than one-half acre in size except in circumstances not applicable to this case: if they are used by threatened or endangered species; if they are located in an area of critical state concern; if they are connected at seasonal high water level to other wetlands; and if they are "more than minimal value," singularly or cumulatively, to fish and wildlife. See ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(a) through (d). Under the District's interpretation of ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1, since ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 does not require compliance with the very sections that determine whether a reduction/elimination analysis is necessary under ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1, such an analysis is not required for Wetlands 2 and 6. Relying on ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.2, a., the Ginns did not perform reduction/elimination analyses for Wetlands 3 and 7, and the District did not require them, because the functions provided by Wetlands 3 and 7 are "low" and the proposed mitigation to offset the impacts to these wetlands provides greater long-term value. Petitioners' environmental expert opined that an reduction/elimination analysis should have been performed for all of the wetlands on the project site, even if isolated and less than half an acre size, because all of the wetlands on the project site have ecological value. For example, small and isolated wetlands can be have value for amphibians, including the gopher frog. But his position does not square with the ERP- A.H., as reasonably interpreted by the District. Specifically, the tests are "more than minimal value" under ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(d) and "low value" under ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.2, a. Secondary Impacts The impacts to the wetlands and other surface waters are not expected to result in adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, including endangered or threatened listed species or their habitats. In accordance with ERP-A.H. 12.2.7(a), the design incorporates upland preserved buffers with minimum widths of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet around the wetlands that will not be impacted. Sediment and erosion control measures will assure that the construction will not have an adverse secondary impact on water quality. The proposed development will be served by central water and sewer provided by the City of St. Augustine, eliminating a potential for secondary impacts to water quality from residential septic tanks or septic drainfields. In order to provide additional measures to avoid secondary impacts to Wetland 1, which is the location of the bald eagles’ nest, the Applicants proposed additional protections in a Bald Eagle Management Plan (BEMP) (App. Ex. 14). Under the terms of the BEMP, all land clearing, infrastructure installation, and exterior construction on homes located within in the primary zone (a distance within 750 feet of the nest tree) is restricted to the non-nesting season (generally May 15 through September 30). In the secondary zone (area between 750 feet and 1500 feet from the nest tree), exterior construction, infrastructure installation, and land clearing may take place during the nesting season with appropriate monitoring as described in the BEMP. Proposed Mitigation The Ginns have proposed mitigation for the purpose of offsetting adverse impacts to wetland functions. They have proposed to provide mitigation for: the 0.18-acre temporary impact to Wetland 1 during installation of a water/sewer line extending from existing City of St. Augustine service to the east (at Theodore Street); the impacts to Wetlands 3, 4 and 7; and the secondary impacts to the offsite portion of Wetland 4. The Ginns propose to grade the 0.18-acre temporary impact area in Wetland 1 to pre-construction elevations, plant 72 trees, and monitor annually for 5 years to document success. Although the easement is 30 feet in width, work will be confined to 20 feet where vegetation will be cleared, the top 1 foot of soil removed and stored for replacing, the trench excavated, the utility lines installed, the trench refilled, the top foot replaced, the area replanted with native vegetation, and re- vegetation monitored. To facilitate success, the historic water regime and historic seed source will give the re-vegetation effort a jump-start. The Ginns propose to restore and enhance a 0.12-acre portion of Wetland 1 that has been degraded by a trail road. They will grade the area to match the elevations of adjacent wetland, plant 48 trees, and monitor annually for 5 years to document success. This is proposed to offset the impacts to Wetland 4. The proposed grading, replanting, and monitoring will allow the area to be enhanced causing an environmental benefit. The Ginns propose to preserve 10.58 acres of wetlands and 3.99 acres of uplands in Wetland 1, 1 acre of upland buffers adjacent to Wetlands 1 and 5, and the 0.01 acre wetland in Wetland 5. The upland buffer will be a minimum of 15 feet wide with an average of 25 feet wide for Wetland 1 and 25 feet wide for Wetland 5. A conservation easement will be conveyed to the District to preserve Wetlands 1 and 5, the upland buffers, and the wetland restoration and enhancement areas. The preservation of wetlands provides mitigation value because it provides perpetual protection by ensuring that development will not occur in those areas, as well as preventing activities that are unregulated from occurring there. This will allow the conserved lands to mature and provide more forage and habitat for the wildlife that would utilize those areas. Mitigation for Wetlands 2 and 6 was not provided because they are isolated wetlands less than 0.5-acre in size that are not used by threatened or endangered species; are not located in an area of critical state concern; are not connected at seasonal high water level to other wetlands; and are not more than minimal value, singularly or cumulatively, to fish and wildlife. As previously referenced in the explanation of why no reduction/elimination analysis was required for these wetlands, ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(d) does not require compliance with under ERP- A.H. 12.3 through 12.3.8 (mitigation requirements) for regulated activities in isolated wetlands less than one-half acre in size except in circumstances found not to be present in this case. See Finding 44, supra. The cost of the proposed mitigation will be approximately $15,000. Operation and Maintenance A non-profit corporation that is a homeowners association (HOA) will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface water management system. An HOA is a typical operation and maintenance entity for a subdivision and is an acceptable entity under District rules. See ERP-A.H. 7.1.1(e) and 7.1.2; Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C- 42.027(3) and (4). The Articles of Incorporation for the HOA and the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions contain the language required by District rules. Water Quantity To address water quantity criteria, the Applicants' engineers ran a model (AdICPR, Version 1.4) to compare the peak rate discharge from the project in the pre-project state versus the peak rate discharge after the project is put in place. The pre-project data input into the model were defined by those conditions that existed in 1985 or 1986, prior to the partial work that was conducted, but not completed, on the site in the late 1980's. The project’s 1985/1986 site condition included a feature called Depression A that attenuated some onsite as well as offsite stormwater. Because of work that was done on the project site after 1985/1986 (i.e., the excavation of the borrow pit and road-clearing activities in the late 1980's), the peak rate of discharge for the 1985/1986 project site condition was lower than the peak rate of discharge for today’s project site condition. (Flooding at Mrs. McMulkin's house began after the work was performed on the project site in the late 1980's.) Because this partial work conducted in the late 1980's increased peak rate discharge from the site, by taking the pre-project conditions back to the time prior to that work, the peak rate of discharge in the 1985-86 pre-project condition was lower than it would be under today's conditions. The model results indicated that for the 25-year, 24- hour storm event, the pre-project peak rate discharge is 61.44 cubic feet per second (cfs). The post-project peak rate discharge is 28.16 cfs. Because the completed project reduces the pre-project peak rate discharges, the project will not cause any adverse flooding impacts off the property downstream. A similar analysis of the peak rate discharges under pre-project conditions that exist today (rather than in 1986) was compared to peak rate discharges for the post-project conditions. This analysis also showed post-project peak rate discharges to be less than the peak rate discharges from the site using today’s conditions as pre-project conditions. As further support to demonstrate that the project would not cause additional flooding downstream, a second modeling analysis was conducted, which is referred to as the Ravenswood Overall Watershed Model (OWM). The Applicants' engineer identified water flowing into the system from the entire watershed basin, including the project site under both the pre- and post-project conditions. The water regime was evaluated to determine what effect the proposed project will have on the overall peak rate discharges, the overall staging, and the duration of the staging within the basin that ultimately receives the water from the overall watershed. This receiving basin area was defined as the "wetland node" (Node 98 pre- project, and Node 99 post-project). As previously stated, the area within this "wetland node" includes more than just the portion of Wetland 1 that is located on the Ravenswood site. It also includes the areas to the south and east of the on-site Wetland 1 (including properties owned by the Petitioners) and extends down to an east-west ditch located just north of Josiah Street. The project’s surface water management system will not discharge to a landlocked basin. The project is not located in a floodway or floodplain. The project is not located downstream of a point on a watercourse where the drainage is five square miles or more. The project is impounding water only for temporary storage purposes. Based on testimony from their experts, Petitioners contend that reasonable assurances have not been given as to water quantity criteria due to various alleged problems regarding the modeling performed by the Ginns' engineer. Tailwater Elevations First, they raise what they call "the tailwater problem." According to Petitioners, the Ginns' modeling was flawed because it did not use a 19.27-foot SHW elevation in Wetland 1 as the tailwater elevation. The 19.27-foot SHW was identified by the Ginns' biologist in the Wetland 1 near the location of the proposed utility line crossing the wetland and was used as the pre-development tailwater in the analysis of the project site. The post-development tailwater condition was different because constructing the project would change the discharge point, and "tailwater" refers to the water elevation at the final discharge of the stormwater management system. (SW- A.H., Section 9.7) The post-development tailwater was 21 feet, which reflects the elevation of the top of the spreader swale that will be constructed, and it rose to 21.3 feet at peak flow over that berm. For the OWM, the final discharge point of the system being modeled was the east-west ditch located just north of Josiah Street, where the tailwater elevation was approximately 18.1 feet, not the 19.27 feet SHW mark to the north in Wetland 1. The tailwater condition used in the modeling was correct. Petitioners also mention in their PRO that "the Applicants' analysis shows that, at certain times after the 25 year, 24 hour storm event, in the post development state, Wetland 1 will have higher staging than in the predevelopment state." But those stages are after peak flows have occurred and are below flood stages. This is not an expected result of post- development peak-flow attenuation. Watershed Criticism The second major criticism Petitioners level at the Applicants' modeling is that parts of the applicable watershed basins were omitted. These include basins to the west of the project site, as well as basins to the north of the site, which Petitioners lumped into the so-called "tailwater problem." Petitioners sought to show that the basins identified by the Ginns as draining onto the project site from the west were undersized, thus underestimating the amount of offsite water flowing onto the project site. With respect to Basin C, Petitioners' witness testified that the basin should be 60 acres instead of 30 acres in size, and that consequently more water would flow into pond DA-2 and thus reduce the residence time of the permanent pool volume. In fact, Basin C is 16 acres in size, not 30 acres. The water from Basin C moves onto the project site over the western project boundary. A portion of the water from Basin C will be directed to pond DA-2 through an inlet structure, and the rest will move over an irregular weir and around the project site. With respect to Basin D, Petitioners' witness testified that the basin should encompass an additional 20 acres to the west and north. West of Basin D, there are ditches routing water flow away from the watershed, so it is unclear how water from an additional 20 acres would enter the watershed. The western boundary of the OWM is consistent with the western boundaries delineated in two studies performed for St. Johns County. Petitioners' witness testified that all of the water from the western offsite basins currently travels across the project site's western boundary, and that in post-development all of that water will enter pond DA-2 through the inlet structure. In fact, currently only the water from Basin C flows across the project site's western boundary. Post-development, only a portion of water from Basin C will enter pond DA-2. Currently and post-development, the water in Basin D travels north to a ditch south of Ravenswood Drive and discharges into Wetland 1. Petitioners also sought to show that a 50-acre area north of the project site should have been included in the OWM. Petitioners' witness testified that there is a "strong possibility" that the northern area drains into the project site by means of overtopping Ravenswood Drive. The witness' estimate of 50 acres was based on review of topographical maps; the witness has not seen water flowing over Ravenswood Drive. The Ginns' engineer testified that the area north of Ravenswood Drive does not enter the project site, based on his review of two reports prepared by different engineering firms for St. Johns County, conversations with one of those engineering firms, conversations with the St. Johns County engineer, reviews of aerials and contour maps, and site observations. Based on site observations, the area north of the project site drains north and then east. One report prepared for St. Johns County did not include the northern area in the watershed, and the other report included an area to the north consisting of 12 acres. The Ginns' engineer added the 12-acre area to the OWM and assumed the existence of an unobstructed culvert through which this additional water could enter Wetland 1, but the model results showed no effect of the project on stages or duration in the wetland. Even if a 50-acre area were included in the OWM, the result would be an increase in both pre-development and post- development peak rates of discharge. So long as the post- development peak rate of discharge is lower than the pre- development peak rate of discharge, then the conveyance system downstream will experience a rate of water flow that is the same or lower than before the project, and the project will not cause adverse flooding impacts offsite. Petitioners' witness did not have any documents to support his version of the delineations of Basins C and D and the area north of Ravenswood Drive. Time of Concentration Time of concentration (TC) is the time that it takes a drop of water to travel from the hydraulically most distant point in a watershed. Petitioners sought to show that the TC used for Basin C was incorrect. Part of Petitioners' rationale is related to their criticism of the watersheds used in the Ginns' modeling. Petitioners' witness testified that the TC was too low because the distance traveled in Basin C should be longer because Basin C should be larger. The appropriateness of the Basin C delineation already has been addressed. See Finding 71, supra. Petitioners' witness also testified that the TC used for the post-development analysis was too high because water will travel faster after development. However, the project will not develop Basins C and D, and thus using the same TC in pre- development and post-development is appropriate. The project will develop Basins A and B (called Basins 1, 2, and 3 post- development), and the post-development TC for those basins were, in fact, lower than those used in the pre-development analysis. Groundwater Infiltration in DA-2 One witness for Petitioners opined that groundwater would move up through the bottom of DA-2 as a result of upwelling (also referred to as infiltration or seepage), such that 1,941 gallons per day (gpd) would enter DA-2. That witness agreed that if a liner were installed in a portion of DA-2, the liner would reduce upwelling in a portion of the pond. Another witness for Petitioners opined that 200 gpd of groundwater would enter the eastern part and 20,000 gpd would enter the western part of DA-2. Although that witness stated that upwelling of 200 gpd is not a significant input and that upwelling of 20,000 gpd is a significant input, he had not performed calculations to determine the significance. Even if more than 20,000 gpd of groundwater entered DA-2, DA-2 will provide sufficient permanent pool residence time without any change to the currently designed permanent pool size or the orifice size. Although part of one system, even if DA-2 is considered separate from DA-1, DA-2 is designed to provide an additional permanent pool volume of 6.57 acre-feet (in addition to the 20.5 acre/feet provided by DA-1). This 6.57 acre-feet provided by DA-2, is more than the 4.889 acre-feet of permanent pool volume that would be necessary to achieve a 21-day residence time for the 24+ acres that discharge directly into DA-2, as well as background seepage into DA-2 at a rate of 0.0403 cfs, which is more upwelling than estimated by Petitioners' two witnesses. There is adequate permanent pool volume in DA-2 to accommodate the entire flow from Basin C and for water entering through the pond bottom and pond sides and provide at least 21 days of residence time. Water Quality Criteria Presumptive Water Quality The stormwater system proposed by the Ginns is designed in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rules 40C-42.024, 40C-42.025, and 40C-42.026(4). Wet detention ponds must be designed for a permanent pool residence time of 14 days with a littoral zone, or for a residence time of 21 days without a littoral zone, which is the case for this project. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-42.026(4)(c) and (d). DA-1 and DA-2 contain sufficient permanent pool volume to provide a residence time of 31.5 days, which is the amount of time required for projects that discharge to Class II Outstanding Florida Waters, even though the receiving waterbody for this project is classified as Class III Waters. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-42.026(4)(k)1. Best management practices will be used during project construction to address erosion and sediment control. Such measures will include silt fences around the construction site, hay bales in ditches and inlets, and maintenance of construction equipment to prevent release of pollutants, and may include staked sod on banks and turbidity barriers if needed. In addition, the District proposed permit conditions that require erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented. (Dist. Ex. 1, pp. 8-9, #4; Dist. Ex. 2, p. 1, ##3, 4, and 5, and p. 6, #10). ERP/MSSW/Stormwater Special Conditions incorporated into the proposed permit require that all wetland areas or water bodies outside the specific limits of construction must be protected from erosion, siltation, scouring or excess turbidity, and dewatering. (Dist. Ex. 2). The District also proposed a permit condition that requires District approval of a dewatering plan for construction, including DA-1 and DA-2, within 30 days of permit issuance and prior to construction. The Ginns intend to retain the dewatering from construction on the project site. As previously described, Petitioners' engineering witness sought to show that DA-2 will not provide the required permanent pool residence time because Basin C should be 60 acres in size. Petitioners' environmental witness also expressed concern about the capacity of the ponds to provide the water quality treatment required to meet the presumptive water quality criteria in the rules, but those concerns were based on information he obtained from Petitioners' engineering witness. Those issues already have been addressed. See Findings 77-78, supra. Groundwater Contamination Besides those issues, Petitioners raised the issue that groundwater contamination from a former landfill nearby and from some onsite sludge and trash disposal could be drawn into the proposed stormwater management system and cause water quality violations in the receiving waters. If groundwater is contaminated, the surface water management system could allow groundwater to become surface water in proposed DA-1. St. Johns County operated a landfill from the mid-1950s to 1977 in an area northwest of the project site. The landfill accepted household and industrial waste, which was buried in groundwater, which in turn could greatly enhance the creation of leachate and impacted water. Groundwater flows from west to east in the vicinity of the landfill and the project site but there was conflicting evidence as to a minor portion of the property. The Ginns' witness testified that if the landfill extended far enough south, a small part of the project site could be downgradient from the landfill. But there was no evidence that the landfill extended that far south. Petitioners' witness testified that the groundwater flow varies on the south side of the landfill so that groundwater might flow southeast toward the site. Even if Petitioners' witness is correct, the surface water management system was designed, as Petitioners' other witness agreed, so that DA-1 would have minimal influence on groundwater near the pond. In 1989, sewage sludge and garbage were placed in a pit in the central part of the project site, north of the existing pond, which also is the area for proposed DA-1; and at various times refuse--including a couple of batteries, a few sealed buckets, and concrete--has been placed on the surface of the site. In 1989, to determine the amount of sewage and garbage on the project site, the St. Johns County Health Department chose several locations evidencing recent excavation south of Ravenswood Drive, had the areas re-excavated, and found one bag of garbage and debris such as tree stumps and palmettos. In 2001, an empty 55-gallon drum was on the site; there was no evidence what it once contained or what it contained when deposited onsite, if anything. In addition, trespassers dumped solid waste on the property from time to time. Petitioners' witness searched the site with a magnetometer and found nothing significant. On the same day, another of Petitioners’ witnesses sampled with an auger but the auger did not bore for core or any other type sample; it merely measured groundwater level. In 1985, 1999, and 2000, groundwater offsite of the project near the landfill was sampled at various times and places by various consultants to determine whether groundwater was being contaminated by the landfill. The groundwater sampling did not detect any violations of water quality standards. Consultants for the Ginns twice sampled groundwater beneath the project site and also modeled contaminant migration. The first time, in 2001, they used three wells to sample the site in the northwest for potential impacts to the property from the landfill. The second time, they sampled the site through cluster wells in the northwest, middle, and south. (Each cluster well samples in a shallow and in a deeper location.) The well locations were closest to the offsite landfill and within an area where refuse may have been buried in the north- central part of the site. Due to natural processes since 1989, no sewage sludge deposited onsite then would be expected to remain on the surface or be found in the groundwater. The evidence was that the sewage sludge and garbage were excavated. Although samples taken near the center of the property contained substances that are water quality parameters, they were not found in sufficient concentration to be water quality violations. There is an iron stain in the sand north of the existing pond in the area where pond DA-1 is to be located. Based on dissolved oxygen levels in the groundwater, Petitioners' witness suggested that the stain is due to buried sewage, but the oxygen levels are not in violation of water quality standards and, while toward the low end of not being a violation, the levels could be due to natural causes. No evidence was presented establishing that the presence of the iron stain will lead to a violation of water quality standards. Petitioners' witness, Mr. Boyes, testified that iron was a health concern. But iron itself is a secondary drinking water standard, which is not a health-based standard but pertains to odor and appearance of drinking water. See § 403.852(12) and (13), Fla. Stat. Petitioners argued that the Phase I study was defective because historical activity on the project site was not adequately addressed. But the Phase I study was only part of the evidence considered during this de novo hearing. Following up on the Phase I study, the 2001 sampling analyzed for 68 volatile organics and 72 semi-volatile organics, which would have picked up solvents, some pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons--the full range of semi-volatile and volatile organics. The sampling in August 2003 occurred because some of the semi-volatile parameters sampled earlier needed to be more precisely measured, and it was a much broader analysis that included 63 semi-volatiles, 73 volatile organic compounds, 23 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, 25 organic phosphate pesticides, 13 chlorinated herbicides, 13 metals, and ammonia and phosphorus. The parameters for which sampling and analyses were done included parameters that were representative of contaminants in landfills that would have now spread to the project site. They also would have detected any contamination due to historical activity on the project site. Yet groundwater testing demonstrated that existing groundwater at the project site meets state water quality standards. Based on the lack of contaminants found in these samples taken from groundwater at the project site 50 years after the landfill began operation, the logical conclusion is that either groundwater does not flow from the landfill toward the project site or that the groundwater moving away from the landfill is not contaminated. Groundwater that may enter the stormwater ponds will not contain contaminants that will exceed surface water quality standards or groundwater quality standards. Taken together, the evidence was adequate to give reasonable assurances that groundwater entering the stormwater ponds will not contain contaminants that exceed surface water quality standards or groundwater quality standards and that water quality violations would not occur from contaminated water groundwater drawn into the proposed stormwater management system, whether from the old landfill or from onsite waste disposal. The greater weight of the evidence was that there are no violations of water quality standards in groundwater beneath the project site and that nothing has happened on the site that would cause violations to occur in the future. Contrary to Petitioners' suggestion, a permit condition requiring continued monitoring for onsite contamination is not warranted. J. Fish and Wildlife Except for the bald eagle nest, all issues regarding fish and wildlife, listed species, and their habitat as they relate to ERP-A.H. 12.2.2 through 12.2.2.4 already have been addressed. When the Ginns were made aware in November 2003 that there was an eagle nest in Wetland 1, they retained the services of Tony Steffer, an eagle expert with over 25 years of experience working specifically with eagles and eagle management issues, including extensive hands-on experience with eagles and the conduct of field studies, aerial surveys, and behavioral observations as well as numerous research projects on the bald eagle. Mr. Steffer visited the Ravenswood site on numerous occasions since the discovery of the nest, made observations, and was integral in the drafting of the Ravenswood BEMP. It is Mr. Steffer’s opinion that the proposed project, with the implementation of the BEMP, will not adversely affect the eagles. This opinion was based on Mr. Steffer's extensive knowledge and experience with eagle behavior and human interactions. In addition, Mr. Steffer considered the physical characteristics of the Ravenswood site and the nest tree, the dense vegetation in Wetland 1 surrounding the nest site, and the existing surrounding land uses, including the existing residential community that lies a distance of about 310 feet from the nest site, the existing roadways and associated traffic, and the school (with attendant playground noise) that is to north of the site. In Mr. Steffer's opinion, the eagles are deriving their security from the buffering effects provided by the surrounding wetland. He observed that the nesting and incubating eagles were not disturbed when he set up his scope at about 300-320 feet from the tree. The BEMP requires that Wetland 1, and the upland islands located within it, be preserved and limits the work associated with the water/sewer line to the non-nesting season. With the BEMP implemented, Mr. Steffer expressed confidence that the Ravenswood eagles would be able to tolerate the proposed activities allowed under the BEMP. The Ravenswood project plans and the BEMP were reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS analyzed information in their files relating to projects which proposed activities within the primary zone of an eagle nest and reported abandoned nests. None of the reported abandoned nests could be attributed to human activities in and around the nest tree. Based on the project plans, the terms of the BEMP, and this analysis, the USFWS concluded that the Ravenswood project "is not likely to adversely affect" the bald eagles at the Ravenswood site. According to the coordination procedures agreed to and employed by the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), the USFWS takes the lead in reviewing bald eagle issues associated with development projects. In accordance with these procedures, for the Ravenswood project, the USFWS coordinated their review and their draft comments with the FFWCC. The FFWCC concurred with the USFWS’s position that the project, with the implementation of the BEMP, will not adversely affect the Ravenswood eagles or their nest. This position by both agencies is consistent with the expert testimony of Mr. Don Palmer, which was based on his 29 years of experience with the USFWS in bald eagle and human interactions. Petitioners and their witnesses raised several valid concerns regarding the continued viability of the Ravenswood eagle nest during and after implementation of the proposed project. One concern expressed was that parts of the Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region (Eagle Management Guidelines) seem inconsistent with the proposed project. For example, the Eagle Management Guidelines state: "The emphasis [of the guidelines] is to avoid or minimize detrimental human-related impacts on bald eagles, particularly during the nesting season." They also state that the primary zone, which in this case is the area within a 750 foot radius of the nest tree, is "the most critical area and must be maintained to promote acceptable conditions for eagles." They recommend no residential development within the primary zone "at any time." (Emphasis in original.) They also recommend no major activities such as land clearing and construction in the secondary zone during the nesting season because "[e]ven intermittent use or activities [of that kind] of short duration during nesting are likely to constitute disturbance." But the eagle experts explained that the Eagle Management Guidelines have not been updated since 1987, and it has been learned since then that eagles can tolerate more disturbance than was thought at that time. Another concern was that the Ravenswood eagles may have chosen the nest site in Wetland 1 not only for its insulation from existing development to the north and east but also for the relatively sparse development to the west. Along those lines, it was not clear from the evidence that the eagles are used to flying over developed land to forage on the San Sebastian River and its estuaries to the east, as the eagle experts seemed to believe. Mr. Mills testified that eagles have been seen foraging around stocked fish ponds to the west, which also could be the source of catfish bones found beneath the Ravenswood nest. But it is believed that the confident testimony of the eagle experts must be accepted and credited notwithstanding Petitioners' unspecific concerns along these lines. Finally, Petitioners expressed concern about the effectiveness of the monitoring during the nesting required under the BEMP. Some of Petitioners' witnesses related less-than-perfect experiences with eagle monitoring, including malfeasance (monitors sleeping instead of monitoring), unresponsive developers (ignoring monitors' requests to stop work because of signs of eagle disturbance, or delaying work stoppage), and indications that some eagle monitors may lack independence from the hiring developer (giving rise, in a worst case, to the question whether an illegal conspiracy exists between them to ignore signs of disturbance when no independent observer is around). Notwithstanding these concerns, Petitioners' witnesses conceded that eagle monitoring can be and is sometimes effective. If Mr. Steffer is retained as the eagle monitor for this project, or to recruit and train eagle monitors to work under his supervision, there is no reason to think that eagle monitoring in this case will not be conducted in good faith and effectively. Even if the Ginns do not retain Mr. Steffer for those purposes, the evidence did not suggest a valid reason to assume that the Ginns' proposed eagle monitoring will not be conducted in good faith and effectively. K. Other 40C-4.301 Criteria – 40C-4.301(1)(g)-(k) 40C-4.301.301(1)(g) - No minimum surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows have been established pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rules Chapter 40C-8 in the area of the project. 40C-4.301.301(1)(h) - There are no works of the District in the area of the project. 40C-4.301.301(1)(i) - The proposed wet detention system is typical and is based on accepted engineering practices. Wet detention systems are one of the most easily maintained stormwater management systems and require very little maintenance, just periodically checking the outfall structure for clogging. 40C-4.301.301(1)(j) - The Ginns own the property where the project is located free from mortgages and liens. As previously indicated, they will establish an operation and maintenance entity. The cost of mitigation is less than $25,000 so that financial responsibility for mitigation was not required to be established. (Costs associated with the proposed BEMP are not included as part of the Ginns' mitigation proposal.) 40C-4.301.301(1)(k) - The project is not located in a basin subject to special criteria. Public Interest Test in 40C-4.302 The seven-factor public interest test is a balancing test. The test applies to the parts of the project that are in, on, or over wetlands, and those parts must not be contrary to the public interest unless they are located in, on, or over an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) or significantly degrade an OFW, in which case the project must be clearly in the public interest. No part of the project is located within an OFW. Balancing the public interest test factors, the project will not be contrary to the public interest. 40C-4.302(1)(a)1. - The project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others because the surface water management system is designed in accordance with District criteria, the post-development peak rate of discharge is less than the pre-development peak rate of discharge, and the project will not cause flooding to offsite properties. 40C-4.302(1)(a)2. - Mitigation will offset any adverse impacts of the project to the conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats, and the BEMP is designed to prevent adverse effects on the Ravenswood eagles. Although active gopher tortoise burrows were observed on the site, the impacts to these burrows are addressed by the FFWCC’s incidental take permit. The mitigation that is required as part of that permit will adequately offset the impacts to this species. 40C-4.302(1)(a)3. - The project will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful shoaling. The project will not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion. The project's design includes erosion and sediment control measures. The project's design minimizes flow velocities by including flat slopes for pipes. The stormwater will be discharged through an upsized pipe, which will reduce the velocity of the water. The stormwater will discharge into a spreader swale (also called a velocity attenuation pond), which will further reduce the velocity and will prevent erosion in Wetland 1. The other findings of fact relevant to this criterion are in the section entitled "Water Quantity." See Findings 61-67, supra. 40C-4.302(1)(a)4. – Development of the project will not adversely affect the legal recreational use of the project site. (Illegal use by trespassers should not be considered under this criterion.) There also will not be any adverse impact on recreational use in the vicinity of the project site. Wetlands 1 and 5 may provide benefit to marine productivity by supplying detritus to the marine habitat, and these wetlands will remain. 40C-4.302(1)(a)5. - The project will be of a permanent nature except for the temporary impacts to Wetland 1. Mitigation will offset the temporary adverse impacts. 40C-4.302(1)(a)6. - The District found no archeological or historical resources on the site, and the District received information from the Division of Historical Resources indicating there would be no adverse impacts from this project to significant historical or archeological resources. 40C-4.302(1)(a)7. - Considering the mitigation proposal, and the proposed BEMP, there will be no adverse effects on the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project. The proposed project is no worse than neutral measured against any one of these criteria, individually. For that reason, it must be determined that, on balance, consideration these factors indicates that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Other 40C-4.302 Criteria The proposed mitigation is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts so the project would not cause an unacceptable cumulative impact. The project is not located in or near Class II waters. The project does not contain seawalls and is not located in an estuary or lagoon. The District reviewed a dredge and fill violation that occurred on the project site and was handled by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1989. The Ginns owned the property with others in 1989. Although they did not conduct the activity that caused the violation, they took responsibility for resolving the matter in a timely manner through entry of a Consent Order. The evidence was that they complied with the terms of the Consent Order. Applicants' Exhibit 30K was a letter from DER dated February 13, 1991, verifying compliance based on a site inspection. Inexplicably, the file reference number did not match the number on the Consent Order. But Mr. Ginn testified that he has heard nothing since concerning the matter either from DER, or its successor agency (the Department of Environmental Protection), or from the District. The evidence was that the Ginns have not violated any rules described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C- 4.302(2). There also was no evidence of any other DER or DEP violations after 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order issuing to Jay and Linda Ginn ERP number 40-109-81153-1, subject to the conditions set forth in District Exhibits 1, 2, and 10. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2004.
Findings Of Fact On November 13, 1990, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) Governing Board voted to issue to the University of North Florida (UNF), a Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) permit #4-031-0359GM for the construction and operation of a surface water management system associated with road and parking lot construction on the UNF campus in Jacksonville. On the same day, the board also voted to issue water resource management permit #12-031-0007G authorizing dredging and filling in waters of the state related to said road and parking lot construction. Petitioners timely petitioned for hearing, challenging the SJRWMD decision to award the permits. Neither the standing of the Petitioners nor the Intervenor is at issue in this proceeding. The UNF campus contains approximately 1000 acres in Duval County, Florida, and lies completely within the jurisdiction of the SJRWMD. The UNF is an agency of the State of Florida, and has the apparent authority to make application for the referenced permits. The UNF campus is designated as a wildlife sanctuary. Of the 1,000 acres, wetlands constitute approximately 450 acres. Prior to development of the UNF campus, the property was utilized for silviculture, with pine trees farmed and harvested on the land. The property was and continues to be crossed by numerous logging roads and trails. During the 1970's extensive alterations occurred in the property related to local development activity. Swamps and stream flows were disrupted. Wetlands headwaters were altered by the construction of lakes. Adjacent highways and office developments were constructed, borrow pits were utilized, and wetlands were filled. There is some planted pine forest, generally no more than 40 years old, remaining on the UNF campus. Much of the UNF property remains undeveloped and consists of a variety of common habitat, including pine flatwoods, oak hammocks, and various wetlands. The existing UNF campus is crossed by a series of wetlands located generally north to south through the property. The wetlands include Sawmill Slough, Buckhead Branch, Boggy Branch, and Ryals Swamp. The water in the area flows to the southeast. Previous construction of UNF Drive required the crossing of Buckhead Branch and the filling of portions of Boggy Branch. The UNF now proposes to construct approximately .66 miles of three lane roadway across the southern portion of the campus to connect the existing UNF access drive into a loop (the "loop" road), approximately .34 miles of two lane roadway from a point on the loop into an upland area in the southeastern part of the campus (the "eastern connector"), pave an existing parking lot near UNF nature trails, and construct related surface and stormwater management facilities. The purpose of the loop road project is to enhance access around the UNF campus. The eastern connector will provide access to an undeveloped upland area of the campus. The expansion is related to and required by the anticipated continued growth of the University. The on-campus silviculture logging roads and trails, which remain from the pre-development period, have long been utilized by the UNF community as nature trails. The trails bisect a substantial part of the remaining undeveloped campus. In 1978, approximately 12 miles of trails were listed by the UNF with the United States Department of the Interior as National Recreational Trails, a national collected listing of recreational trails. These named trails, (the "maintained trails" as identified below, and the White Violet, Switchcane, and Turkey Trace trails) were marked by means of paint blazing and signs. In some locations, such markings, and at least one sign remain visible, even though the paint markings have not been repainted since the original blazing occurred. The UNF is fiscally unable to maintain all twelve miles of trail for general public use. The UNF concentrates maintenance and education efforts on three of the trails, the Blueberry, the Red Maple and the Goldenrod (hereinafter referred to as the "maintained trails"). The maintained trails, approximately 6 miles in total length, are signed and marked to provide clear and safe direction through the area. For public use, the UNF provides educational materials related to the maintained trails. Approximately 17,000 persons use the maintained trails annually. Two rangers are employed to supervise the maintained trails. In the most recent two year fiscal period, about $21,000 has been spent rebuilding and upgrading parts of the maintained trails. The UNF provides no security for the logging trails (hereinafter the "unmaintained trails") which are not part of the maintained trail system, and does not encourage the use of the old logging roads as trails. The proposed road construction project will adversely affect the use of the unmaintained trails because the road projects will intersect and overlap several of the trails. The evidence fails to establish that the UNF is without authority to amend, alter, relocate or abandon trails listed with the United States Department of the Interior as National Recreational Trails, or that notice need be provided to the Department prior to such action. There are additional recreational facilities available on the UNF campus, including two jogging trails, as well as a multi-sport facility in the north part of the campus. Approximately 10 total miles of trails exist (including the maintained trails and excluding the unmaintained logging trails). Persons who travel to the maintained trails by automobile currently park in an unpaved lot. The proposed roadway construction for which permits are being sought includes expansion and paving of the nature trail parking lot. This improvement will provide for better access to, and increased utilization of, the maintained trails and eliminate maintenance problems experienced in relation to the unpaved parking area. Notwithstanding the adverse impact on current use of the unmaintained logging trails, the project will enhance recreational development. Operation of the stormwater system, which will result in improved water quality discharged into the receiving waters, will not adversely affect recreational development. Although the recreational values of the impacted unmaintained trails will be adversely affected, on balance the additional access to the maintained trails and the recreational opportunities presented elsewhere on the UNF campus negate the impact on the unmaintained trails. Construction of the roadway will adversely impact portions of the Boggy and Buckhead Branches, which contains wetlands (as defined by, and under the jurisdiction of, the SJRWMD) and waters of the State of Florida (as defined by, and under the jurisdiction of, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, which has authorized the SJRWMD to review projects on the DER's behalf). The extent of the wetland impact was determined by the UNF and corroborated by the SJRWMD in an reliable manner. The wetlands impact areas are identified as follows: Area 1, at the upper margin of Boggy Branch, includes slash pine canopy and mixed bay trees; Area 2 is primarily second growth loblolly bay canopy, dense undergrowth, swamp. The loblolly is approximately 20 years old; Area 3 is a west flowing connection between Boggy and Buckhead Branches; Area 4, (the Buckhead Branch crossing), is bay canopy and bottomland hardwood. Areas 1, 2 and 4 will require filling for the construction of the loop road. Area 3 requires filling for the construction of the eastern connector. A total of approximately 2.3 total acres of forested wetlands are included within the impacted area. Of the 2.3 acres identified as wetlands for MSSW permitting purposes, 1.5 acres are classed as waters of the state for purposes of dredge and fill permitting. The wetlands are generally classified as fair to poor quality, although there is a limited wetland area classified as fair to good quality. The wetlands impact of the project on wetland dependent and off-site aquatic species would, without mitigation, be unpermittable. The loop road project includes three drainage areas. Accordingly to plans, drainage area #1 is served by curbs and gutters into storm sewers and discharging into wet detention pond E, drainage area #2 is served by curbs and gutters into storm sewers and discharging into wet detention pond F, and drainage area #3 is served by curbs and gutters discharging into a dry retention swale located adjacent to the road. Stormwater management and treatment for the eastern connector will be provided by a swale system located adjacent to the eastern connector. The western portion of the loop road and the newly paved nature trail parking lot will be separately served by a dry swale system and two retention ponds at the newly paved nature trail parking lot. Wet detention ponds retain the "first flush" stormwater runoff and discharge the water at a reduced rate through a "bleed down" structure. Pollutant removal occurs when first flush runoff is retained and mixed with additional water. Pond and soil organisms and littoral plants provide additional treatment. Such ponds are effective and require minimal maintenance, generally involving removal of nuisance species and cleaning of the "bleed down" structure. Oil skimmers will prevent the discharge of oils and greases from the site. The wet detention ponds have side slopes no steeper than a 4 to 1 horizontal to vertical angle and will be mulched or vegetated to prevent erosion. Dry retention facilities retain the "first flush" runoff and attenuate peak stormwater discharge. The water within the dry swale is filtered as it percolates down through the soil. Maintenance of dry swale systems requires mowing and removal of silt buildup. The design of the system provides that the post development peak rate of discharge will not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge for a 24 hour duration storm with a 25 year return frequency. The project will not cause a reduction in the flood conveyance capabilities provided by a floodway. The project will not result in flows and levels of adjacent streams, impoundments or other water courses being decreased so as to cause adverse impacts. The projects detention basins will provide the capacity for the specified treatment volume of stormwater within 72 hours following a storm event. The project is not located in and does not discharge directly to Class I or Class II waters, to Class III waters approved for shellfish harvesting, or to Outstanding Florida Waters. The receiving waters for the system are Boggy and Buckhead Branches, both Class III surface waters. Operation of the system will not cause or result in violation of state water quality standards for the receiving waters. The discharge from the system will meet Class III water standards. There is no evidence that operation of the system will induce pollution intrusion. The design and sequence of construction includes appropriate Best Management Practice provisions for erosion and sediment control, including silt barriers and hay bales. Such provisions are required by the SJRWMD permit conditions. Silt barriers will completely enclose the dredging locations. The bottoms of silt curtains will be buried and will extend 3.5 to 4 feet above the land surface. Slopes will be stabilized by sodding or seeding. The locations of the wet ponds and dry swales, nearby the roadways, will facilitate maintenance activities. Maintenance requirements are included within the SJRWMD permit conditions and are sufficient to ensure the proper operation of the facilities. Although the Petitioners asserted that prior violations of SJRWMD rules related to water quality discharge by the UNF indicate that the UNF is not capable of effectively and adequately operating and maintaining the system, the evidence establishes that the permit conditions are sufficient to provide for such operation and maintenance. The project also includes replacement of an existing culvert at a connection between Boggy and Buckhead Branches. The existing culvert is impounding water during the wet season. The replacement culvert will be installed at the connection floor elevation and will serve to restore the natural hydrology. The new culvert will also be substantially larger than the existing pipe, and can allow fish and wildlife passage under the road. In order to mitigate the impact of the project on wetland dependent and off-site aquatic species, the UNF has proposed to create a 6.3 acre freshwater forested wetland at a site contiguous to Buckhead Branch. The wetlands creation project includes 2.9 acres of submerged wetlands and 3.4 acres of transitional wetlands. Of the 6.3 acres, 4.1 acres of the created wetlands are designated to mitigate the adverse impacts related to the dredge and fill activities. The mitigation proposal constitutes a ratio of 2.7 acres of wetlands creation for every acre of wetland impact. The mitigation site is a low upland pine flatwood and mesic flatwood area surrounded on three sides by wetlands related to Buckhead Branch. The mitigation area will be scraped down to a suitable level and over-excavated by six inches. The elevation of the proposed wetland creation area is based upon water table data and surveying of the Buckhead Branch, located adjacent to the proposed mitigation area, which serves as the wetlands reference area. The UNF monitors surface and ground water elevation in the proposed mitigation area and in Buckhead Branch, and records rainfall amounts. The hydrology of the proposed wetland creation area is based upon the connections of the created wetlands with Buckhead Branch and is sufficient to assure an appropriate hydroperiod. The six inch over-excavation will receive muck soils removed from the impacted wetland areas. The subsurface soils in the wetland creation area are, because of the existing water table level, compatible with the wetland creation. The muck soil will naturally contain seeds and tubers of appropriate vegetation. Additionally, wetland trees, based upon trees in adjacent wetland areas, will be planted in the wetland creation. Prior to planting, the UNF will be required to submit an as-built survey demonstrating that the hydrology and elevation newly- created wetland is proper. The UNF proposal to monitor and maintain the created wetland includes physical and aerial examination of the site, which will be protected by a deeded conservation easement. The monitoring and maintenance plan will continue for three years. The mitigation effort must achieve a ground cover of not less than 80% to be considered successful. Nuisance species will comprise less than 10% of the site's vegetation, and excessive nuisance species will be removed. The UNF is required to periodically report the status of the site to the SJRWMD. The mitigation proposal is adequately detailed and sufficient to offset adverse impacts to wetlands resulting from construction and operation of the system and the dredge and fill project. The wetland creation permit conditions indicate that the wetlands will function as designed and approved by the SJRWMD. The wetland creation is greater in size than the impacted wetlands, will replace the habitat and function of the impacted wetlands and will offset the adverse impacts of the loss of existing wetlands. There will be no impact on any threatened or endangered animal species. The evidence that such species utilize impacted sites is limited. Existing utilization of the impacted site will be accommodated by the remaining wetlands and the created wetland mitigation area. There is no evidence that fish will be adversely affected by the project. Construction and operation of the system will not cause adverse changes in the habitat, abundance, diversity or food sources of threatened and endangered species or off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species. More than five years ago, a bald eagle, listed as endangered by the State of Florida, was observed perched on an upland tree in an area where a retention pond will be constructed. The eagle was not nesting or feeding at the time of observation. The closest known eagle's nest is more than four miles away from the site. None of the impacted area provides appropriate feeding ground for a bald eagle. Colonies of red-cockaded woodpeckers exist between one and one half to ten miles away from the UNF campus. Red- cockaded woodpeckers have been observed on the UNF campus but not in the vicinity of the areas to be impacted by the project. Red- cockaded woodpeckers habitat pine trees at least 50 years old. While the existing pine may provide red-cockaded woodpecker habitat in the future, the pine trees to be impacted by this project are not suitable habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers at this time. There are no pines on the UNF campus which would currently provide suitable red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. Woodstorks have been sighted on the UNF campus, but not in the impacted area or the mitigation area. Woodstorks feed in areas dissimilar to the impacted areas, therefore there should be no impact on the species. Gopher tortoises have been observed on the UNF campus, but not in the impacted wetland areas or in the mitigation areas. There is no evidence that gopher tortoises would be impacted by this project. A number of animal species identified as wetland dependent have been observed on the campus. However, the evidence of actual utilization of impacted areas by such species is unclear as to frequency and manner of utilization. Such wetland-dependent species are capable of utilizing proximal habitat and will be absorbed by the unimpacted wetland acreage on the UNF campus. Further, the impact on potential habitat caused by the project will be effectively mitigated through the created wetland area. Five hooded pitcher plants are located within the wetland impact area and will be destroyed by construction activities. The hooded pitcher plant is listed by the State of Florida as a threatened species, however, the plant is common in wet areas throughout Duval, Clay, St. Johns and Nassau Counties. Because the muck soils removed from the area will contain seeds, roots and rhizomes from existing vegetation, the plants will likely reproduce in the created wetland area which will contain the muck soil removed during the permitted construction activity. There is no evidence that the dredge and fill project will adversely affect public health, safety and welfare. There are no significant secondary impacts resulting from the proposed project. The SJRWMD considered the environmental impacts expected to occur related to the construction of the roadways for which the permits are sought. In this case, the anticipated secondary impact of the project relates to the effect of automobiles on existing wildlife. The evidence does not establish that there will be such an impact. The road poses no obstacle to wildlife migration. The replacement of the existing culvert with a new culvert at the proper ground elevation may provide enhanced access for some wildlife. The cumulative impacts of the project include the potential expansion of the eastern connector which would require the crossing of Boggy Branch, and future building construction in the southeast portion of the UNF campus. There is no evidence that such impacts, which would require additional permitting, could not be offset with additional mitigation at such time as the permitting is sought.
Recommendation Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William F. Quattlebaum, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on June 11-12, 1991, in Jacksonville, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a family owned corporation. Arthur B. Lujan is the Petitioner's President and Chief Executive Officer. The Key Haven Development is a residential development presently composed of ten additions. The eleventh addition is proposed for construction on the submerged land which is the subject matter of this proceeding. The Key Haven Development is located on Raccoon Key adjacent to Stock Island in the Florida Keys. Nine of the Key Haven additions were developed by a former owner who, sometime prior to 1964, transferred title to Arthur B. Lujan. In 1964, 1965, and 1966, Mr. Lujan, as the Petitioner's President, made application with the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to purchase three tracts of submerged land which together form the area which is the subject of this proceeding. The Trustees sold the land to the Petitioner in three separate deeds for $300 per acre. The land area is located just offshore from the first ten additions of the Key Haven Development. Before the sale was approved, representatives of the Trustees viewed the subject property, and received information from representatives of the predecessor to the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Representatives of the Trustees were aware that the Petitioner proposed to dredge and fill the land area, and to develop it. It was the Trustees' assumption that the entire land area would be filled. The $300 price was set by the Trustees' appraiser. The appraisal was based upon sales of other submerged land in the Florida Keys by the Trustees. The appraisal was not based upon whether the land area would be filled, or what use it would ultimately be put to, but rather upon similar sales. This was contrary to the general policy exercised by the Trustees in making assessments, but was necessary because establishing a developed valuation, and establishing the cost of filling an area was extremely difficult with respect to submerged land in the Florida Keys. The deeds executed by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund do not contain any permit for dredge and fill projects. There is no promise contained in the deeds or elsewhere that dredging or filling would be allowed. Other deeds executed by the Trustees have contained such assurance. Petitioner made no effort to develop the subject property, and made no applications either to the Respondent or its predecessors, or to the United States Army Corps of Engineers until 1972. Petitioner obtained a building permit from Monroe County prior to filing the instant application. Whether the building permit would constitute approval of the project by local government cannot be gleaned from the evidence because the building permit was not offered into evidence. There is no evidence from which it can be determined what matters were considered by the County in issuing the building permit. No significant action was taken by the Respondent on the application until sometime during 1975 due to a statewide moratorium that had been imposed on all dredge and fill projects. During the course of informal proceedings before he Respondent, it became evident to the Petitioner that representatives of the Respondent intended to deny the application. The Petitioner, through his attorney, thus requested whether it would be necessary to submit a hydrographic survey which would have cost the Petitioner from $10,000 to $15,000. A representative of the Respondent advised the Petitioner that other effects of the project were so negative, that even if a hydrographic survey were very positive, the staff would recommend denial of the permit. Thus in order to save a considerable amount of money which would not have led to a favorable decision, the Petitioner elected not to have a hydrographic survey performed. By letter dated April 29, 1976, the Respondent issued its Notice of Intent to Deny the Permit, and advised the Petitioner that it could petition for a hearing pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Petitioner proposes to fill approximately 150 acres of submerged land in Class III waters of the State of Florida. The location of the proposed project is depicted on maps which were submitted with Petitioner's dredge and fill application, and on an aerial photograph that was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 3. Petitioner proposes to fill the area to four feet above sea level. Fill would be obtained through the dredging of eight canals and a boat basin or lagoon. Such additional fill as might be required would be trucked in from other areas. Waterfront residences would be constructed on the fill area. The canals would be connected to surrounding waters by a feeder canal, and by three foot culverts located at each end of each canal. The area which the Petitioner proposes to dredge and fill is submerged land which varies in depth from one to four feet. There are several hundred square miles of similar shallow flatlands in the area of the Florida Keys. Some dredging and filling has occurred in areas surrounding the proposed land, and the proposed landfill site has been damaged somewhat by these projects. The area is generally, however, in its natural condition. A large number and a good variety of corals are found in the area. The area provides a nursery and feeding ground for spiney lobster and stone crabs. There is also a large number and variety of aquatic plants in the area. The site is a habitat for shore and wading birds, and mangroves growing in the area provide a habitat for many species of birds. Larger diving birds utilize offshore portions of the site for feeding. The immediate effect of the proposed project would be to obliterate all marine plant and animal life in the area and to eliminate the bird habitat. After dredging and filling the area would recover somewhat, and some marine organisms would find an accommodating habitat in the proposed canals. The area would not, however, continue to support the same variety and number of plant and animal species as presently utilize the area. Canals were dredged in several of the earlier additions of the Key Haven subdivision. These canals are not precisely the same as those proposed by the Petitioner in the eleventh addition, but they do provide some insight into what will likely occur if this project is completed. The "standing crop" of vegetation in the existing canals is greater than the "standing crop" in the area which the Petitioner proposes to dredge and fill. "Standing crop" is a term used to identify the amount of vegetation that is present at a given moment. "Standing crop" considered alone is neither a positive nor a negative factor ecologically speaking. Depending upon what vegetation is present, and the diversity of vegetation, a high standing crop can in fact be a negative factor. "Productivity" is a term used to indicate the amount of plant or animal life that will be produced over a period of time. Productivity is a biologically more important term than is standing crop. The evidence was not clear as to whether the present canals or the proposed fill area is the more productive in terms of aquatic vegetation. It is apparent that the proposed fill area has a much greater diversity of plant life. The canals are dominated by a few species of aquatic vegetation. It is clear that the proposed fill area is much more productive in terms of animal life. The canals do not provide suitable nursery grounds for spiney lobster or stone crabs, and no corals have been found in the canals. Water quality at the proposed landfill site is presently very good. The proposed landfill and canals would have an adverse impact upon water quality in the area. The project will obstruct prevailing currents in the area, and erosion and shoaling are likely to occur on surrounding submerged lands on the northwest and northeast sides of the project. The canals are considerably deeper than the adjoining waters. There will not be an adequate flushing of water from the canals into the surrounding waters. The three foot culverts at the ends of the canals will serve to assist the transfer of waters from the canal to the surrounding waters; however, vertical mixing of waters within the proposed canals is not likely to occur, and water on the bottom of the proposed canals will tend not to flush. Waters in the area of the proposed landfill are constantly mixed presently due to the action of wind and tides. The canals will not be so subject to the action of the winds and the tides due to their depth, and also due to their orientation in relation to prevailing currents. The reduced exchange of water between the canals and surrounding waters will cause a trapping of nutrients from organic waste in the canals. An increase in nutrients causes an increase in plant growth. The plants produce oxygen but the decay of the plants consumes an equivalent amount of oxygen. During the afternoon oxygen will likely bubble up from the bottom of the proposed canals into the air, causing a depletion of oxygen in the canals, and most especially in the bottom levels of the proposed canals. A transfer of waters, or an infusion of oxygen from the air could compensate for such an oxygen deficiency, but these factors are greatly restricted in canals. This is especially true in deep canals, such as those proposed by the Petitioner. It is likely that dissolved oxygen levels in the proposed canals will be below state standards at various places and at various times. While dissolved oxygen deficiencies occasionally occur in natural conditions, it is not likely that such deficiencies would be found in open areas such as the proposed development site. Reduced oxygen levels in the proposed canals would have a negative effect upon the water quality of the area. Evidence was offered at the hearing which tends to show that several employees of the Respondent actively opposed the Petitioner's proposed project on the grounds that the project would have an adverse effect upon water quality in the area and upon natural resources in the area. Although there was a considerable delay in the processing of the Petitioner's application, no evidence was offered to establish that the delay was caused by any improper action or motivation on the part of the Respondent or any of its employees. The Petitioner has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed dredge and fill project would not have an adverse effect upon water quality and natural resources in the area. The proposed project would serve the private interests of the Petitioner, who seeks to develop a residential community for profit, and the private interests of persons who might wish to have waterfront residences in the Florida Keys. The public interest would not be served by the proposed project. The public interest would be adversely effected by the project in that water quality in the area, and the natural resources of the area are likely to be adversely effected by the proposed project. Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent have been considered. Respecting Petitioner's Proposed Findings, Paragraphs 1 2, and 3 have been substantially adopted. Paragraph 4 has been substantially adopted, with the exception of the last sentence. It is true that Mr. Lujan testified as set out in the sentence; however, Mr. Weigel, who actually made the appraisal of the land that was sold by the Trustees to the Petitioner testified that the appraisal was not based upon the intended use of the land, but rather upon the going rate for submerged lands in the Florida Keys at the time. Paragraph 5 has been substantially adopted except that any inference in the paragraph that the Petitioner was not required to obtain a dredge and fill permit has been rejected. As to the last sentence of the paragraph, the word "inordinate" has been rejected, as not being supported by the evidence. Paragraph 6 has been adopted to some extent; however, any inference contained in the paragraph that the Respondent's employees acted improperly in opposing the Petitioner's application is not supported by the evidence. Any inference contained in the paragraph that representative of the Respondent wrongfully induced the Petitioner to avoid the expense of a hydrographic survey is also rejected as not being supported by the evidence. That portion of Paragraph 7 to the effect that the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund apparently considered the "public interest" in making the determination to sell the submerged land to the Petitioner is adopted. The paragraph is in all other respects rejected as not being supported by the evidence, or as being legally irrelevant to the issues in this matter. Paragraph 8 contains a substantially accurate summary of several depositions which were offered into evidence in this case. To the extent that the paragraph contains a legal conclusion that the public interest would be benefited by the proposed project, the paragraph is rejected. The paragraph is further rejected insofar as it relates the conclusions of the persons deposed as to probable effects of the proposed project upon water quality in the area and natural resources of the area. This testimony is too remote in terms of time to have any probative value in this matter. Paragraph 9 contains an accurate summary of the deposition of William R. Weigel; however, insofar as the paragraph contains an inference that Mr. Weigel's appraisal of the subject land was based upon anything except sales of comparable submerged lands in the Florida Keys, the paragraph is rejected. Paragraph 10 contains an accurate summary of the deposition of Jack Buford. Paragraph 11 contains an accurate summary of the deposition of John Dubose. Paragraph 12 contains an accurate summary of the deposition of William Kidd. To the extent that Paragraphs 10 through 12 contain any conclusion that the Petitioner was not required to seek a permit with respect to his proposed project, the paragraphs are rejected. Paragraphs 13 and 14 are similarly rejected insofar as they contain any such conclusion. Paragraph 14 contains a very brief summary of the testimony of Doctor Rich. Insofar as Doctor Rich concluded that there would be no substantial adverse biological effects from the proposed projects, or no detriment to water quality, his testimony has been rejected due to the testimony of other witnesses. Paragraphs 15 and 16 have been substantially adopted. Paragraph 17 Is adopted in part but is rejected insofar as it contains any inference that no dredging and filling could ever occur in the subject area. The only project considered in this matter is the precise project proposed by the petitioner Whether a different sort of project without canals, or with shallower canals, or less filled area might be approved has not been considered. Paragraph 18 is rejected insofar as it contains a conclusion that the Petitioner is not required to obtain a permit for his proposed dredging and filling activities. Each paragraph of the Respondent's Proposed Findings has been substantially adopted herein. Summaries of witnesses' testimony contained in the Respondent's Proposed Findings are accurate.
The Issue This proceeding concerns a Consent Order entered into by the Department of Environmental regulation (DER), and James and Patricia Gratzer (Gratzers) regarding an allegedly unpermitted fill in Winter Springs, Florida. The ultimate issue for determination is whether DER abused its discretion in resolving the alleged violations by entering into the subject Consent Order.
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1990, the Gratzers purchased a 4.35 acre lot located at 216 Stoner Road in Winter Springs, Florida. At the time of purchase, the Gratzers planned to divide the lot and build a residence on the two acre parcel. In preparation for construction of their new home, the Gratzers approached the Winter Springs City Council to subdivide the property and to approve of use of the fill road as ingress and egress for both lots. In February of 1991, the Gratzers and their builder obtained the proper building permits from the County and septic tank permits from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Construction began on the residence on April 9, 1992 when the Gratzers' builder brought in several trucks of dirt to the end of the existing fill road to begin the house pad. At the time the Gratzers began construction on the subject lot, they had no idea or reason to believe that they were about to build in jurisdictional wetlands of the State of Florida. On approximately April 14, 1992, the Gratzers were first made aware that they may have problems with potential wetlands on the property when an officer of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission visiting the site instructed the builders to halt construction, pending a review by DER. As a result of the site visit, the Gratzers investigated further with DER employees the potential wetlands on their property. They also sought the advice of an attorney and his environmental consultant regarding possible ways to solve DER's concerns. On approximately April 26, 1991, an employee of DER visited the site and made an initial determination that the property was a jurisdictional wetland subject to permitting by DER. Under present rules the Gratzer property, with exception of the filled access road, would all be in DER jurisdictional wetlands if only the natural vegetation were considered. Upon being informed of DER's initial determination, the Gratzers hired an engineer from Boyer-Singleton & Associates to make an engineering determination as to the extent of jurisdictional wetlands based upon a ten-year backstop. A ten-year backstop is a method provided by statute to determine the ultimate landward extent of DER's vegetational jurisdictional line. It is a hydrological calculation to determine water elevation levels in a certain area, subject to the ten-year recurrent storm event. By rule and statute, DER's jurisdiction over wetlands effectively stops at the upper end or limit of the ten-year flood elevation line. Claude Cassagnol, of Boyer-Singleton and Associates, an expert in hydrology, reviewed available materials, visited the site and made an initial determination of the ten-year backstop on the Gratzers' property, and ultimately mapped out his conclusions on a plat. Mr. Cassagnol's hydrological study, and his review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) materials, led him to conclude that the ten-year backstop would leave the Gratzer's house pad out of any DER jurisdictional wetlands. As a result of his study, Cassagnol forwarded several letters to George Baragona of DER requesting that Mr. Baragona, an expert hydrologist, review his determination and ratify his conclusions. The Gratzers, on advice of counsel, allowed their building contractor to complete compaction of the house pad and begin preparations to pour the house floor. The septic tank contractor for the Gratzers completed installation of the tank and drain field prior to July 1st. After the Gratzers had recommenced construction, on approximately July 10, 1992, DER, issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) which ultimately formed the basis for the Consent Order in this case. The Gratzers immediately ceased further construction on the property and sought further negotiations with DER. Shortly after the NOV was issued, George Baragona reviewed the information, studies and plats submitted by Mr. Cassagnol regarding the ten-year backstop. Baragona made a determination of the ten-year backstop at a point more landward than Cassagnol's. It appears from the plat submitted at hearing, that Baragona's ten- year backstop line runs along the base of the fill roadway; his testimony, however, indicated that his backstop line dipped in and out near the roadway, and he simply chose the baseline of the fill road as his "worst case scenario". Baragona, because of the house pad, was required to extrapolate a line through the house pad, resulting in approximately half of the house pad area being in jurisdictional wetlands. The result of further negotiations between the parties was the Consent Order which is the subject matter of this proceeding. As settlement, the Gratzers agreed to Baragona's "worst case scenario" ten-year backstop, placing approximately half of the house pad was in DER jurisdictional wetlands. As part of the settlement, the Gratzers agreed to, and have paid, a fine of $1,400.00 to DER and have granted a conservation easement over a large portion of the remainder of their property, resulting in an 11.6 to 1 ratio of conservation easement to impacted wetlands, slightly above DER's guideline 10 to 1 ratio. In investigating the alleged violations at the subject property, DER reviewed the cumulative impacts of the project and determined that they were not great, in light of the surrounding area and its already high level of development. In making this determination, DER reviewed property lists, maps and other facts to determine the level of current development. In reviewing the alleged violations, DER also considered whether or not this project would have been able to get a permit had the Gratzers sought a permit prior to any construction. It was DER's determination that the project would have been permittable under the criteria in Chapter 403, in conjunction with the mitigation offered at the site. Finally, in its review and study of the alleged violations, DER determined there was no evidence that this project would have any adverse impact on water quality. DER made a determination that this was a "low to medium" violation, and that the impacts were properly addressed through the Consent Order which imposed the $1,400.00 fine and secured the conservation easement. Fill Road Issue A small road or driveway existed on the site at the time the Gratzers purchased the property, extending from Stoner Road from the south, to the center of their property. Although Baragona indicated the DER modelled backstop line did not always extend to the driveway, he said it sometimes appeared to "bump up" to the eastern edge of the driveway. Baragona could not say with absolute certainty where the 10 year backstop would be on the east side of the site if the driveway were not present. The type of wetland vegetation on the Gratzer property would be considered jurisdictional wetland vegetation under rules adopted pursuant to the 1984 Warren F. Henderson Wetlands Act (Section 403.91, et seq.), but would not be considered jurisdictional wetland vegetation under rules applicable prior to October 1, 1984. If the driveway on the Gratzer property was installed prior to October 1, 1984, it is legal, but if it was installed after that date it is illegal because there is no evidence it ever was properly permitted. DER does not allow illegally filled areas to cut off the extent of its wetland jurisdiction. Therefore, if the driveway on the Gratzer property were placed in DER jurisdictional wetlands without a permit, the road itself could not act as a 10 year backstop cutting off DER wetland jurisdiction to the west. There was conflicting evidence as to when the driveway was placed on the property. James Hartman, who sold the property to the Gratzers, testified he built the driveway in 1978 and 1979. William Kuyper, an expert in aerial photography interpretation, testified that based on his review of aerial photos, the road had been placed on site sometime between January 6, 1986, and March, 1989. The weight of the evidence indicates the driveway was probably placed on site before October 1, 1984, and therefore did not require a DER permit. First, the former landowner's testimony that he built the road in 1978 and 1979, must be considered more reliable than an interpretation of aerial photos taken from 12,000 feet in the air, in spite of the expertise of the photographic interpreter. A possible explanation for why the driveway "appeared" in the 1989 aerial photo but not in the 1986 aerial photo is that the road may have been disturbed, or new fill put on the road sometime between 1986 and 1989, causing the road to be more visible in 1989. Even if the 10 year backstop were to be determined without the driveway present, it would not be significantly different. While DER's 10 year backstop line "bumps up" against the road in places, it does not "bump up" in other places along the driveway, but in order to be conservative the line was placed along with driveway in all areas. The modelled location of the line north of the housepad where there is no driveway is consistent with where the line is modelled south of the housepad where the driveway is located. The Society and its Concerns The Society's corporate status was not controverted. CFWS members have been patrolling the Lake Jessup/Gee Creek area and other wetland areas and have found what they believe are violations of the law and rules intended to protect wetland resources. Although neither Michael Mingea nor his expert witness have been on the Gratzer property, they have been in the immediate area and are concerned about the cumulative impact of small dredging projects, like the Gratzers, which projects are routinely reported to DER by the Society. Beginning in May 1991, the Society corresponded regularly with Secretary Browner at DER and Secretary Williams at the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) and their respective staffs, regarding what the Society perceived were violations occurring through lax enforcement. The Society believed, though review of HRS and DER files, that the Gratzers' project included a septic tank placed in jurisdictional wetlands. This was not established; rather, the septic tank was erroneously placed inside a setback line, but outside the jurisdictional line, and a variance was readily obtained from HRS. DER does not have direct jurisdiction over septic tank permits and HRS' authority is derived from the statutes, not from DER. The Society's position regarding the Gratzer project is based in substantial part on its assertion that the fill road was illegally placed and that DER's jurisdiction extended through the entire property. The Society, however, did not rebut the sound evidence by George Baragona of the 10-year backstop. Nor did it present competent evidence of any alleged water quality violations. Only one other actual violation of permit requirements was established, and DER has required the developer to move the project from jurisdictional wetlands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, recommended that the Consent Order that is the subject of this proceeding be adopted as Final Agency Action. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 24th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0104 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners: 1.-3. Adopted in preliminary statement and paragraph 19. 4. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. 5.-6. Rejected as unnecessary. 7.-8. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. 9.-12. Rejected as unnecessary. 13. Adopted in part in paragraph 20, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 14.-16. Rejected as unnecessary. 17.-18. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 19. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 20.-22. Rejected as unnecessary. 23.-25. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 26. Rejected as unnecessary. 27.-30. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 31.-32. Rejected as summary of testimony or argument, rather than findings of fact. 33.-34. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 35.-36. Rejected as unnecessary. 37. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. [Section VI, pp 19-22 includes unnumbered paragraphs summarizing testimony, rather than findings of fact]. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael W. Mingea, President Central Florida Wetlands Society P.O. Box 2826 Orlando, FL 32802 Rex D. Ware, Esquire P.O. Box 1794 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire DER-Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary DER-Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. DER-Twin Towers Ofc. Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399
Findings Of Fact Urbanek owns land in and adjacent to Town Lots 93 and 94, Highland Beach, in Section 28, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida. The real estate in question is located on the eastern shore of the Intra-Coastal Waterway approximately 2,000 feet south of the mouth of the C-15 Canal. Urbanek seeks a permit under Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes, and water quality certification under Public Law 92-500, to dredge approximately 24,500 square feet of shoreline and shallow nearshore area, while installing approximately 240 linear feet of bulkhead and ten mooring piles, and constructing a marginal dock and piers for the use of future residents. The application also includes filling approximately 60,000 square feet of tidally connected ditches and wetlands to allow the construction of a high density residential development. On January 19, 1976, DER received a short form application for a permit from Urbanek pursuant to Subsection 17-4.28 (4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. On March 10, 1976, Urbanek received from DER a request for additional information. This occurred 51 days after Urbanek's original application for permit. Urbanek forwarded the requested additional information to DER on April 22, 1976, and April 30, 1976. On May 12, 1976, DER notified Urbanek that the project must be submitted using standard permitting procedures along with the incorporation of certain recommendations made by DER's field inspector. On June 9, 1976, Urbanek was notified by DER that his application had been forwarded to Tallahassee with a recommendation for denial on two grounds. First, that the application did not meet the criteria for short form applications and second, that the proposed project would eliminate valuable submerged and wetland habitats. On July 27, 1976, Urbanek was notified by DER's Tallahassee office that his application was received on January 1976, and that the application was incomplete. The notification requested additional information. On September 22, 1976, DER notified Urbanek that processing of his application was discontinued because required data was not sent by Urbanek to DER. Urbanek was further advised that processing of the application," would be continued upon receipt of the necessary information. On January 20, 1977, Urbanek submitted another modified permit application to DER. On February 28, 1977, DER sent Urbanek notice of receipt of the application once again requesting additional information be submitted. On March 4, 1977, Urbanek forwarded the requested information to DER. On April 1, -1977, DER forwarded to Urbanek its notice of intent to deny and the proposed order of denial of the permit application. On April 15, 1977, Urbanek petitioned DER for a hearing pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The area of the project, prior to the turn of the century, was a fresh water wetland. However, salt water intrusion from the permanent opening of the Boca Inlet in south Palm Beach County in the early 1900's paved the way for colonization of mangroves in the Spanish River Basin, now the Intra-Coastal Waterway. As the human population increased in Palm Beach County, the mangroves were destroyed in order to afford living spaces. As a result, approximately 77 percent of the mangroves in Palm Beach County have been removed. One of the last remaining mangrove areas in southern Palm Beach County is located on a strip of land which borders the eastern side of the Intra-Coastal Waterway. The applicant's project site represents a portion of that strip. The project site fronts 230 feet-of the Intra-Coastal Waterway and extends approximately 670 feet eastward to State Road A1A. The property is intersected by three mosquito control ditches which run perpendicular to the Intra-Coastal Waterway but do not connect with it, and by six lateral ditches which extend from north to south and adjoin the property to the south. The project site is thus divided into eighteen parcels of land or "islands" and a fringing shoreline area. A survey conducted on October 13, 1977, and October 18, 1977, revealed the emergent areas between the ditches to be vegetated by mostly white mangroves, with canopies ranging from fifteen to forty-five feet in height. Numerous white and red mangrove seedlings plus a few scattered black mangrove seedlings indicate that the area may be changing from a predominantly white mangrove to a mixed mangrove community throughout the project site. Batis and Sesuvium were found and Australian Pines and Brazilian Pepper were observed only in areas where spoil from dredging activities was placed on the emergent area. There are approximately seven to eight thousand trees, including seedlings, in the project area. The mangrove system at the project site was characterized as a very productive system by Dr. G. Alex Marsh, an expert in Estuarine Ecology, who testified for DER. Dr. Arnold Banner of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with Dr. Marsh that the eradication of the productive system would result in the removal of a significant source of food and habitat. The evidence shows that a wetland habitat such as the project site affords approximately 535 pounds of fishing products per year with a dollar value of $8,000 per acre to the public. Petitioner argues that it would be in the public interest to bulkhead and fill the subject property because rodents would be eliminated, trash and debris would no longer collect on the property and that further erosion of the property would be prevented. However, Urbanek has failed to establish with substantial competent evidence that there actually exists a rodent problem on the subject property. The evidence does establish that trash and debris collect among the root system of the vegetation and that severe erosion has occurred on the property from wave action created by vessels moving through the Intra- Coastal Waterway. Urbanek has failed to establish with substantial competent evidence that the proposed project will not degrade water quality, cause violation of water quality standards or criteria or cause pollution. In fact, no evidence was submitted whatsoever by Urbanek which would tend to prove any of these three preconditions to the granting of the requested permit. Nonetheless, DER's failure to act on the permit application within the time limits prescribed by Subsection 120.60 (2), Florida Statutes, as amended in 1976, mandates the issuance of the requested permit.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility to administer the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Petitioner has the authority to appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission any development order issued in an area of critical state concern. Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and is responsible for issuing development orders for development in unincorporated Monroe County. Monroe County issued the development order that is the subject of this appeal. Respondents, David and Florence Clark, are the owners of real property known as Lot 90, Holly Lane, Section F, Sugarloaf Shores, Florida (Lot 90). Sugarloaf Shores is a legally platted subdivision. The Clarks were, at the time of the formal hearing, constructing a single family dwelling on that property. The building permit for the construction of the dwelling is not at issue in this proceeding. Most of Monroe County, including the subject property, is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern as designated under Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. There is an extensive man-made canal system throughout Sugarloaf Shores subdivision that is several miles in length, is between six and ten feet in depth, and is approximately sixty feet in width. The subject permit is for construction where Lot 90 fronts this canal system and involves construction beyond the mean high water mark onto submerged lands. On January 17, 1992, Monroe County issued the subject building permit, Permit Number 9210003952, to David and Florence Clark as owners and Edward Warren Werling as contractor. The subject permit authorizes the construction of a vertical bulkhead designed to limit erosion together with a docking facility with davits and access to the canal system. Most of the neighboring lots in the vicinity of the project have vertical bulkheads with docking facilities. The bulkhead is desirable to prevent erosion of the canal bank at Lot 90 and pollution of the canal waters. The requested development would give the Clarks safe access to the canal and provide private boating facilities. Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes, Monroe County has adopted a comprehensive plan which complies with the Principles of Guiding Development found at Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. Section 380.0552(7), requires Monroe County's land development regulations to comply with certain Principles For Guiding Development, including the following: (b) To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife and their habitat. * * * (e) To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. ... Monroe County's comprehensive plan, which has been approved by the Petitioner and by the Administration Commission, is implemented through its adopted land development regulations, codified in Chapter 9.5, Monroe County Code. Section 9.5-345(m)(2), Monroe County Code, provides as follows: (2) All structures on any submerged lands and mangroves shall be designed, located and constructed such that: * * * No structure shall be located on submerged land which is vegetated with sea grasses except as is necessary to reach waters at least four (4) feet below mean low level for docking facilities; No docking facility shall be developed at any site unless a minimum channel of twenty (20) feet in width where a mean low water depth of at least minus four (4) feet exists; Section 9.5-4(W-1), Monroe County Code, provides as follows: (W-1) "Water at least four (4) feet below mean sea level at mean low tide" means locations that will not have a significant adverse impact on off- shore resources of particular importance. For the purposes of this definition, "off-shore resources of particular importance" shall mean hard coral bottoms, habitat of state or federal threatened and endangered species, shallow water areas with natural marine communities with depths at mean low tide of less than four (4) feet, and all designated aquatic preserves under Florida Statutes section 258.39 et seq. Section 2.104, Nearshore Waters, Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Volume II, Future Land Use Element, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The Florida Keys are dependent on nearshore water quality for their environmental and economic integrity. The heart of the Florida Keys economy, the means by which Monroe County exists as a civil and social institution, is based on its unique oceanic character. If nearshore water quality is not maintained, then quality of life and the economy of Monroe County will be directly and immediately impacted. OBJECTIVES 1. To protect, maintain and, where appropriate, to improve the quality of nearshore waters in Monroe County. * * * POLICIES 1. To prohibit land use that directly or indirectly degrade nearshore water quality. * * * To prohibit the development of water dependent facilities, including marinas, at locations that would involve significant degradation of the biological character of submerged lands. To limit the location of water-dependent facilities at locations that will not have a significant adverse impact on off-shore resources of particular importance. For the purposes of this policy, off-shore resources of particular importance shall mean hard coral bottoms, habitat of state or federal threatened and endangered species, shallow water areas with natural marine communities with depths at mean low tide of less than four (4) feet, and all designated aquatic preserves under Florida Statutes section 258.39 et seq. Benthic communities exist in Sugarloaf Sound, such as rock-hard bottom, sea grasses, algae, and hard coral. Turtles, manatees, sharks, stingrays, eagle rays, snapper, pink shrimp, mullet, and other marine animals populate the Sound. Sea grass beds play an important role in water quality maintenance in the Keys through filtration, nutrient uptake, stabilization of the bottom, and as a habitat for commercially important species. The canal system for Sugarloaf Shores subdivision does not have access to deep water without crossing shallow sea grass beds with depths of less than four feet at mean low water. The operation of motor driven boats may result in damage to sea grass beds and shallow water marine communities through prop dredging. Although there is evidence of prop dredging in parts of Sugarloaf Sound in these shallow areas, it was not shown that the damage was done by boats traveling from the Sugarloaf Shores canal system and deep water. Whether a boat that may be docked at some future time if the permit is granted will cause damage to some portion of Sugarloaf Sound is speculation. Since 1986, Monroe County has adopted an interpretation of Section 9.5-345(m)(2), Monroe County Code, and of Section 2.104, Nearshore Waters, Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Volume II, Future Land Use Element, that would permit the construction of the subject project. That interpretation permits the development of marginal seawalls, vertical bulkheads and docks in subdivisions that were under development in 1986 if there is at least four feet of water at the terminal point of the dock at mean low tide. The dock that is the subject of this proceeding would, if permitted, terminate in water of at least six feet in depth at mean low tide. Monroe County's interpretation of the so-called "four foot rule" is that the rule was intended to restrict the development of boating access facilities in new, undeveloped subdivisions and to regulate proposed expansion of existing marinas and the development of new marinas. Monroe County's interpretation of its rules is that a vertical bulkhead and dock built on an individual family home-site, where a dwelling was already built or under construction, would have minimal effect on the nearshore water environment of critical state concern. Monroe County considers the subject application by the Clarks to meet all of its permitting criteria. The subject project has received an exemption from permitting from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and from the Florida Department of Natural Resources. The Army Corps of Engineers has agreed to issue a permit for the project with no special conditions. There is no definition of "docking facility" contained within the Monroe County Land Development Regulations or the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. It was not established that a bulkhead is a docking facility or that the construction of a bulkhead on Lot 90 should be prohibited under any of the theories advanced by Petitioner. Respondents presented evidence that several similar projects were permitted at approximately the same time as the Clarks's permit without Petitioner filing an appeal. This evidence was insufficient to establish that Petitioner should be estopped to appeal the subject permit, that Petitioner engaged in selective enforcement of its regulatory power, or that Petitioner otherwise brought the subject appeal for an inappropriate purpose.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The subject appeal was timely taken by Petitioner pursuant to Section 380.07(2), Florida Statutes, from a development order of Monroe County granting the Clark's request for a building permit to construct a vertical bulkhead and dock on their residential lot on Sugarloaf Shores subdivision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, the propriety of Monroe County's action was reviewed de novo. Transgulf Pipeline Co. v. Board of County Commissioners of Gadsden County, 438 So.2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The ultimate burden of persuasion rested on the Clarks to establish their entitlement to the permit authorizing their proposed development. Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 567 So.2d 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), and Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Dispositive of whether the subject construction is consistent with the Monroe County land development regulations is the interpretation to be accorded Section 9.5-345(m)(2), Monroe County Code. Generally, an administrative construction of a statute by an agency responsible for its administration is entitled to great deference and should not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. Department of Environmental Regulation v. Goldring, 477 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1985); All Seasons Resorts, Inc. v. Division of Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, 455 So.2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); and Sans Souci v. Division of Land Sales and Condominiums, 421 So.2d 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The same deference has been accorded to rules which have been in effect over an extended period and to the meaning assigned to them by officials charged with their administration. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 427 So.2d 716 (Fla. 1983), and State Department of Commerce, Division of Labor v. Matthews Corp., 358 So.2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Moreover, the agency's interpretation does not have to be the only one or the most desirable one; it is enough if it is permissible. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission, supra, and Florida Power Corp. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 431 So.2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Here, no less deference should be accorded Monroe County's interpretation of its land development regulations where, as here, such interpretation is reasonable, evidences due consideration for private rights of ownership, and is not contrary to its comprehensive plan. See e.g. Thomson v. Village of Tequesta Board of Adjustment, 546 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). It is concluded that Monroe County's interpretation of Section 9.5- 345(m)(2), Monroe County Code, is a permissible interpretation and that the subject development is consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations. The Clarks have satisfied their burden of proof by demonstrating that the proposed construction is consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations and that they are entitled to the subject permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order affirming Monroe County's decision to issue building permit number 9210003952, and dismissing the appeal filed by the Department of Community Affairs. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 30th day of December, 1992.
