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 is whether an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and a Letter of Consent to Use Sovereignty Submerged Lands (Letter of Consent) should be issued to Respondent, Palm Beach County (County), authorizing it to fill 7.97 acres of submerged lands for a restoration project in Lake Worth Lagoon.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings are determined: The Parties Trump is the owner association for a two-towered residential and commercial condominium building located at 525 South Flagler Drive in downtown West Palm Beach, upland and west of the project site in the Lagoon. Each tower rises thirty floors and together they have of two hundred twenty units. The first five floors are common areas including a lobby on the first floor, while a pool and patio are located on the fifth floor of the north tower. The property is separated from the Lagoon by Flagler Drive, a four-lane divided road with landscaping and sidewalks which runs adjacent to, and on the western side of, the Lagoon. There is no dispute that Trump has standing to initiate this action. Flagler owns, manages, and leases two multi-story office buildings located at 501 Flagler Drive on the upland real property directly west of the project location. Like the Trump property, the Flagler property is separated from the Lagoon by Flagler Drive. There is no dispute that Flagler has standing to participate in this matter. The County is a political subdivision of the State and is the applicant in this proceeding. The Department is the state agency with the authority under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes,2 to issue to the County an ERP for the project, as well as authority as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees) to authorize activities on sovereign submerged lands pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 18-21. Background On October 29, 2007, the County submitted to the Department its Joint Application for an ERP and Letter of Consent to use sovereignty submerged lands in the Lagoon owned by the Board of Trustees. The application was assigned File No. 50- 0283929-00. After an extensive review process, including three requests for additional information, on August 12, 2008, the Department issued its Notice of Intent authorizing the County to fill 7.97 acres of submerged lands in the Lagoon with approximately 172,931 cubic yards of sand and rock material to create the following: (a) approximately 1.75 acres of red mangrove habitat including 1.52 acres of mangrove islands and 0.23 acres of red mangrove planters; (b) approximately 0.22 acres of cordgrass habitat; (c) approximately 0.90 acres of oyster habitat; (d) approximately 3.44 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation habitat; and (e) a 10-foot by 556-foot (5,560 square feet) public boardwalk with two 3-foot by 16-foot (48 square feet) educational kiosk areas and a 16-foot by 16-foot (256 square feet) observation deck for a total square footage of approximately 5,912 square feet. The Notice of Intent also included a number of general and specific conditions particular to this project. Trump (by timely Petition) and Flagler (by intervention) then challenged the Notice of Intent. They contend generally that the project unreasonably infringes upon or restricts their riparian rights and fails to meet the permitting and consent to use criteria set forth in Chapters 18-21 and 40E-4, as well as Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Section 253.141, Florida Statutes. Conflicting evidence on these issues was presented at the hearing. The conflicts have been resolved in favor of the County and the Department, who presented the more persuasive evidence. The Project The project area is a cove in the Lagoon, a Class III water body which extends within the County from North Palm Beach to Manalapan. The western side of the water body in the project area is lined with a vertical concrete seawall approximately 6.64 feet above the mean low water line. The waters immediately adjacent to the Trump and Flagler upland property are generally two to five feet deep along the seawall. To the east lies the island of Palm Beach, to the south is the Royal Park Bridge, which connects West Palm Beach and the Town of Palm Beach, while to the north is the Flagler Memorial drawbridge. The Lagoon is approximately 2,000 feet from shore to shore. The Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) runs roughly through the middle of the Lagoon in a north-south direction. Currently, there is an artificial dredge hole in the project area around four hundred feet from the western seawall. The dredge hole, which descends to approximately twenty feet at its deepest location, is filled with muck, which can be re- suspended by wave energy into the water, blocking the sunlight necessary for the support of biotic life. The muck covers the natural hard bottom, consumes oxygen, and presents an unsuitable environment for benthic organisms. The dredge hole is too deep to support seagrasses. The project calls for filling the dredge hole to intertidal elevations, i.e., between the high and low tide elevations, for mangroves and elevations suitable for seagrass. In all, approximately 173,000 cubic yards of fill will be placed in and around the hole to build up three separate islands within the project footprint, on which the County will plant 10,000 red mangroves, which naturally grow between fifteen and twenty-five feet in height. (The County estimates that eighty to ninety percent of the mangroves will survive and grow to a height of at least fifteen feet.) The top of the islands, not including mangroves, will be just below the mean high water mark. The County also proposes locating planters along the seawall and oyster reefs along the southern end of the project. The planters are designed to extend out approximately twenty feet from the seawall and will be placed on sovereign submerged lands. The last five feet will consist of limestone rock. Mangrove, spartina, and seagrass habitats will provide a biodiverse source of food and habitat for other species, and occurs naturally within the Lagoon but has been lost over time. Oyster habitat is proposed for additional bio-diversity and to provide a natural water filtration function. From the County's perspective, the restoration project would be incomplete without all the habitats proposed. The planters will be at an intertidal elevation, planted with red mangroves and spartina, and faced with rock to reduce wave energy in the area. The oyster reefs are rock structures designed to rise one foot above mean high water line for visibility to boaters. The project also includes a boardwalk and attached educational kiosks on the south side of the project to bring the public in contact with the habitats. The County will maintain the boardwalk, empty the trash daily, and open/close the gates at sunrise/sunset. The County proposes a minimum ten-foot buffer between seagrass beds and the fill area. The project is part of the County's Lagoon Management Plan, which outlines the County's restoration goals within the Lagoon. The County has performed numerous other restoration projects within the Lagoon to re-introduce mangrove and seagrass habitat, such as Snook Island, which consisted of filling a 100- acre dredge hole, installing mangrove islands, seagrass flats, and oyster reefs. The Snook Island project restored mangrove habitat and recruited fish and bird species, including endangered and threatened species. Snook Island has remained stable, with no sediment deposition or erosion. The County intends to fill the dredge hole with native lagoon bottom sediment. A clam-shell machine will deposit the sediment below the water line to reduce turbidity. Sediment will be placed around the edges of the dredge hole, reducing the velocity of the fill as it settles to the bottom and encapsulates the muck, as required by Draft Permit Special Condition No. 19. The County will use turbidity curtains, monitor conditions hourly, and stop work if turbidity levels rise beyond acceptable standards. These precautions are included in Draft Permit Conditions 12, 13, and 14. The County will use construction barges with a four- foot draft to avoid propeller dredge or rutting and will place buoys along the project boundary to guide the construction barges, precautions integrated into the Draft Permit conditions. The County's vendor contracts require maintenance of construction equipment to prevent leakage. A similar condition is found in the Draft Permit. Both the intertidal and seagrass flats elevations at the top of the islands will be built at a 4:1 slope; elevations subject to wind and wave energy will be reinforced with a rock revetment constructed of filter cloth and rock boulders. Seagrass elevations will have no reinforcing rock because they are deep enough to avoid significant currents. Proposed drawings were signed and sealed by a professional engineer. The ERP Criteria To secure regulatory approval for an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions in current Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E- 4.302. The first rule focuses primarily on water quantity, environmental impacts, and water quality. The latter rule requires that a public interest balancing test be made, and that cumulative impacts, if any, be considered. Also, the BOR, which implements the rule criteria, must be taken into account. a. Rule 40E-4.301 21. Paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c), (1)(g), (1)(h), and (1)(k) and subsections (2) and (3) of the rule do not apply. Although Trump and Flagler have focused primarily on paragraphs (1)(d), (f), and (i) in their joint Proposed Recommended Order, all remaining criteria will be addressed. Paragraph (1)(d) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the proposed activity "will not adversely affect the value of the functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters." Based on the project design, the filling of the dredge hole and capping of muck, the restoration of seagrass habitat, and the creation of mangrove habitat, the project will have no adverse impacts but rather will be beneficial to the value of functions for fish and wildlife. Paragraph (1)(e) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The County will be required to manage turbidity that may be generated from the project. In part, the turbidity will be contained by the proposed construction method for filling the dredge hole. As noted earlier, the native sand will be deposited using a clamshell-type arm to dump the sand under the water around the periphery of the edge of the downward slope of the dredge hole. This will continue around the periphery of the hole, building up a lip and letting it slide down towards the bottom of the hole, squeezing the muck into the center of the hole and beginning to encapsulate it. Once there are several feet of native sand over the muck to encapsulate it, the County will resume the filling at the target rate. Subsection 4.2.4.1 of the BOR requires that the County address stabilizing newly created slopes of surfaces. To satisfy this requirement, the County will place the fill at a 4:1 slope. The outer edge of the mangrove islands slope back to a 4:1 slope and use rock rip-rap to stabilize that slope. Also, filter cloth, bedding stones, and boulders will be used. Because water currents slow near the bottom, the 4:1 slope for the seagrass elevations on the bottom will not de-stabilize. There will be turbidity curtains around the project area. Those are floating tops and weighted bottoms that reach to the bottom and are intended to contain any turbidity that may be generated by the project. Specific Conditions 12, 13, and 14 require extensive monitoring of turbidity. The County proposes to use a barge with a draft no greater than four feet. This aspect of the project will require a pre-construction meeting and extensive monitoring throughout the project. As a part of the application review, the County performed a hydrographic analysis which was coordinated with and reviewed by the Department staff. There are no expected debris or siltation concerns as a result of the project. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that over the long term, the project is expected to have a beneficial effect on water quality. By filling the dredge hole and providing habitat for seagrass, mangroves, and oysters, the project will provide net improvement to water quality. The requirements of the rule have been met. Paragraph (1)(f) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the activities will not "cause secondary impacts to the water resources." More detailed criteria for consideration are found in BOR Subsection 4.2.7. The County has provided reasonable assurance that through best management practices, it will control turbidity. Also, Specific Conditions in the proposed permit require that water quality monitoring be conducted throughout the process. There will be no impacts to upland habitat for aquatic or wetland dependent species. This is because a vertical seawall is located upland of the project site, and no surrounding uplands are available for nesting or denning by aquatic or wetland dependent listed species. A secondary impact evaluation also includes an evaluation of any related activities that might impact historical and archaeological resources. There are, however, no historical or archaeological resources in the area. If resources are uncovered during the project, Draft Permit conditions require notification to the Department of State. Finally, there are no anticipated future activities or future phases on the project to be considered. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the project "will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed." Trump and Flagler contend that the project cannot be constructed and successfully operated as proposed. Trump's expert witness, Joseph Pike, testified that there were ambiguities and conflicts within the plan drawings that would require changes upon build-out; either fill will be placed outside of the fill area, or the mangrove islands will be smaller than depicted. Mr. Pike also voiced concerns that a 4:1 slope would not be stable and might cause fill to migrate to existing seagrass beds. He further stated that the Snook Island project included 18:1 slopes, and he thought providing rock revetment only at the intertidal zone was insufficient. Mr. Pike acknowledged that he had used 4:1 slopes in lake projects; however, in a tidal project involving fill placement, he opined that a 4:1 slope was likely to "relax." He did not do calculations about what slope might hold and admitted that prior experience using similar slopes with the same type of fill might change his opinion. Finally, Mr. Pike noted that a portion of the dredge hole would not be filled and concluded that the project would not fully cap the muck. Trump's biologist, James Goldasitch, speculated that the water flow changes would cause sediment deposition on existing seagrass beds, possibly causing the seagrasses to die. He admitted, however, that the County's plans called for the creation of 3.44 acres of seagrass and did not know the amount of habitat created compared to the amount of habitat he anticipated being affected. The Department's engineer, Jack Wu, approved the hydrologic aspects of the County's plan, but Mr. Goldasitch speculated that Mr. Wu was more focused on shoreline stability than on depositional forces. Mr. Goldasitch never actually spoke to Mr. Wu regarding his analysis, and Mr. Wu's memorandum refers not only to engineering and construction aspects of the proposal but also to the criteria in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. Mr. Goldasitch believed the County's boardwalk will impact the seagrass beds by blocking sunlight, but acknowledged that the Draft Permit required the boardwalk to be elevated and portions to be grated. Both the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Department's expert witness concluded that the permit conditions for constructing the boardwalk, which are common, eliminated impacts to seagrass. Mr. Goldasitch further opined that the 4:1 slope might slump, but then deferred to the opinion of a registered engineer on this type of engineering matter. The County presented its professional engineer, Clint Thomas, who worked on the project design. Mr. Thomas explained that permit drawings are not intended to be construction-level in detail, but are merely intended to provide sufficient detail for the regulator to understand the project within the 8 and 1/2 by 11-inch paper format required by the Department. The County will ultimately prepare permit-level, construction-level, and as-built drawings. Permit conditions also require a pre-construction meeting. No fill will be placed outside the area designated for fill, and the 4:1 slope will start at the outer boundary of the designated fill area until it reaches the specified elevation. Mr. Thomas acknowledged that the plan view drawings depict a mangrove island too close to the western project boundary, but stated that the mangrove island would simply be placed farther to the east during the construction-level plan process. Islands will become smaller islands, but will not be relocated, and in no event will the fill area expand; the fill boundary is a very strict limit. There is no evidence that the County has ever violated a fill boundary established in a permit. The 4:1 slope was based on the type of fill proposed for the project and to maximize project features. Mr. Thomas has successfully used 4:1 slopes with non-compacted fill in the Lagoon, both at Snook Island in its as-built state and at other projects. The islands at Snook Island are similar to those proposed. Other areas in the Lagoon have held slopes steeper than 4:1 with the same type of fill. Therefore, Mr. Thomas opined the 4:1 slope would hold. In rendering this opinion, he explained that the currents in the project vicinity are only around 1.2 knots. Because currents slow near the bottom, the 4:1 slope for the seagrass elevations on the bottom will not de- stabilize. Mr. Thomas addressed the contention that a change in water flow velocity would cause sediment to deposit on existing seagrass. The oyster reefs are rubble structures that allow the water to flow through. If any sediment flows through, it will deposit on the north side of the oyster bar, rather than on the seagrass beds. Given these considerations, the evidence supports a finding that the project will function as proposed. Finally, paragraph (1)(j) requires that the County provide reasonable assurance that it has the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. The evidence supports a finding that the County has complied with this requirement. In summary, the evidence supports a finding that the County has given reasonable assurance that the project satisfies the criteria in Rule 40E-4.301. b. Rule 40E-4.302 In addition to the conditions of Rule 40E-4.301, the County must provide reasonable assurance that the construction of the proposed project will not be contrary to the public interest. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)1.-7. Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)1. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Trump first contends that the project will increase the mosquito population. The evidence shows, however, that the mangroves will be placed below the mean high water mark and therefore no increase in mosquitoes should occur. Also, the design of the project, coupled with the local mosquito control program, should ensure that there will be no increase in mosquito population or a risk to the public health. Trump also raised the issue of an increase in trash along the boardwalk area or in the newly-created mangrove islands. The County presented evidence that there will be appropriate trash receptacles in the area as well as regular garbage collection. In terms of safety, navigation markers are included as a part of the project for safe boating by the public. The County consulted with the United States Coast Guard regarding navigation issues. Further, the project will not cause flooding on the property of others or cause an environmental impact on other property. Although a number of Trump residents expressed sincere and well-intended concerns about the project impacting the value of their condominiums (mainly due to a loss of view), BOR Subsection 4.2.3.1(d) provides that the "[Department] will not consider impacts to property values or taxes." Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)2. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Subparagraph 4. of the same rule requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational value or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The proposed activity is a restoration project for the creation of seagrass and mangrove habitats. As such, it is beneficial to the conservation of fish and wildlife and is expected to increase the biotic life in the project area. Besides providing additional habitat for fish and wildlife, the project will add to the marine productivity in the area. In terms of recreational opportunities, the project is expected to be a destination for boating, kayaking, fishing, and birdwatching. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has also recommended issuance of the permit with the standard manatee condition for in-water work. This recommendation has been incorporated as Specific Conditions 23 through 25 Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)3. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect navigation and the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The nearest navigation channel is the ICW. The project is located outside of that area. Subsection 4.2.3.3 of the BOR provides additional guidance on the evaluation of impacts of this nature. Paragraph (a) of that subsection provides that, in evaluating a proposed activity, the Department "will consider the current navigational uses of the surface waters and will not speculate on uses which may occur in the future." Trump residents indicated that in the project area persons are now picked up off the seawall and then travel to the ICW. Access to the seawall is possible from the east and south, although existing shoals currently limit the approach from the south. Large boats do not use the area because of shoals. In general, "[t]here's not a whole lot of boating activity in the project area." The parties agree that if the project is constructed as designed, boats will not be able to travel directly out from the seawall in front on Trump or Flagler to the ICW, as they now do. However, navigation in the area will still be available, although not as convenient as before. As to water flow, shoaling, and erosion, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the 4:1 slope will be stable and will not cause fill to migrate outside of the boundaries of the project into existing seagrass beds. The tidal flow will continue through the area after construction without sediment deposition into existing seagrass beds or destabilizing the 4:1 slope. There will be no shoaling or erosion. Finally, the project will be permanent and there are no significant historical and archaeological resources in the area. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)5. and 6. In summary, the evidence supports a finding that the County's proposal is neutral as to whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others; that the County's proposal is neutral with respect to navigation, erosion and shoaling, and water flow, as well as to historical and archaeological concerns; and that the County's proposal is positive with respect to the conservation of fish and wildlife, recreational values and marine productivity, permanency, and current values and functions. When these factors are weighed and balanced, the project is not contrary to the public interest and qualifies for an ERP. D. Proprietary Authorization Chapter 18-21 applies to requests for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. The management policies, standards, and criteria used to determine whether to approve or deny a request are found in Rule 18-21.004. In making its review, the Department reviews the rule in its entirety; it also looks at the forms of authorization (e.g., letters of consent, leases, deeds, or easement) to determine the most appropriate form of authorization for an activity. Trump and Flagler have raised contentions regarding the proprietary authorization, including whether the application should have been treated as one of heightened public concern, whether the proper form of authorization has been used, and whether their riparian rights are unreasonably infringed upon by the project. Heightened Public Concern Rule 18-21.0051 provides for the delegation of review and decision-making authority to the Department for the use of sovereign submerged lands, with the following exception found in subsection (4) of the rule: (4) The delegations set forth in subsection (2) are not applicable to a specific application for a request to use sovereign submerged lands under Chapter 253 or 258, F.S., where one or more members of the Board, the Department, or the appropriate water management district determines that such application is reasonably expected to result in a heightened public concern, because of its potential effect on the environment, natural resources, or controversial nature or location. On March 13, 2008, the Department's West Palm Beach District Office sent a "heightened public concern [HPC]) memo" to the Department's review panel in Tallahassee,3 seeking guidance as to whether the project required review by the Board of Trustees under the above-cited rule. The Department emailed the County on March 14, 2008, stating that the project would be elevated to the Board of Trustees for review to approve the entire Lagoon Management Plan. The County asked for reconsideration, concerned over timing restraints on grant opportunities. This concern is based on the fact that the County will receive grant monies to assist in the construction of the project and must have regulatory approval by a date certain in order to secure those funds. A second HPC memorandum was sent to the review panel on April 22, 2008. Part of the interim decision to elevate the application to the Board of Trustees concerned the boardwalk connection to the City of West Palm Beach's existing seawall. The City of West Palm Beach is the upland owner of the seawall, sidewalk, and Flagler Drive. On June 9, 2008, the Mayor of West Palm Beach sent a letter to the Department stating that the City "fully supports" the proposed activity, and that the County and the City collaborated on the design of the project, held joint public meetings, and produced a project video. See Department Exhibit Trump and Flagler argue that under the City Charter, the Mayor cannot unilaterally bind the local government to allow structures to be built on City property. Assuming this is true, one of the remaining conditions for the County to initiate the project is to obtain a "letter of concurrence" from the City of West Palm Beach authorizing the County to connect the boardwalk to the seawall. Therefore, the review panel ultimately concluded that the application could be reviewed at the staff level and did not require Board of Trustees review. The evidence at hearing did not establish that the application was one of heightened public concern, given the limited size of the project, its location, and the net benefit to both environmental and natural resources. Compare Brown, et al. v. South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., et al., DOAH Case No. 04-0476, 2004 Fla. ENV LEXIS 112 (DOAH Aug. 2, 2004, SFWMD Sept. 8, 2004). Therefore, review by the Board of Trustees was not required. Form of Authorization Trump and Flagler contend that an easement is required by the County, rather than a consent of use. The standard for obtaining an easement is more stringent than a consent of use, and an easement offers a greater interest in sovereign lands. Rule 18-21.005(1) provides the general policy direction for determining the appropriate form of authorization and reads in relevant part as follows: It is the intent of the Board that the form of authorization shall grant the least amount of interest in the sovereignty submerged lands necessary for the activity. For activities not specifically listed, the Board will consider the extent of interest needed and the nature of the proposed activity to determine which form of authorization is appropriate. This rule requires that the Department should apply the lowest and least restrictive form of authorization. Trump and Flagler argue that the County's project constitutes a spoil disposal site under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)8., a public water management project other than public channels under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)10., or a management activity which includes "permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public," as described in Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)11. Each of these activities requires an easement rather than a letter of consent in order to use sovereign submerged lands. The evidence shows that the County's project is not a spoil disposal site. Also, it is not primarily a public water management project as there is no evidence that the project relates in any way to flood control, water storage or supply, or conservation of water. Likewise, there is no evidence indicating that the activities will prevent access by the public by exclusion. Even though many of the features (structures) of the project will be permanent, the project is intended to generally increase public access to water resources, as well as the islands, boardwalk, and kiosks. Besides raising the issue of heightened public concern, the second HPC Memorandum dated April 22, 2008, sought guidance as to whether the project required a consent of use or an easement. The review panel concluded that the project qualified for a consent of use, rather than an easement under Rule 18- 21.005(1)(f), because the County's project most closely fits the definition in Rule 18-21.005(1)(c)15. That rule provides that if the proposed activity involves "[h]abitat restoration, enhancement, or permitted mitigation activities without permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public," an applicant may use sovereign submerged lands with a consent of use. Because the County's project increases public access not only to water resources in the Lagoon but also to the permanent structures being built, it more closely falls within the type of activity described in Rule 18-21.005(1)(c)15. Notably, all of the County's restoration projects in the Lagoon have been previously authorized through a consent of use. Finally, the review panel concluded that the project did not fall under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)16., which requires an easement for environmental management activities that include "permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public" because of the rule's focus on the exclusion of the general public. Riparian Rights The parties have stipulated, for the purpose of this proceeding, that Trump and Flagler have riparian rights, including view, ingress/egress, fishing, boating, swimming, and the qualified right to apply for a dock, that should be considered. Trump and Flagler contend that their right to wharf out (build a dock) from the seawall, ingress/egress from navigable water, and view will be unreasonably infringed upon if the application is approved. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18- 21.004(3)(a)("[n]one of the provisions of this rule shall be implemented in a manner that would unreasonably infringe upon the traditional, common law riparian rights, as defined in Section 253.141, F.S., of upland property owners adjacent to sovereignty submerged lands"). For the reasons given below, the greater weight of evidence establishes that none of these riparian rights will be unreasonably infringed upon. Currently, while access is possible from the east and the southern approaches, existing shoals limit the southern approach. The boardwalk will further limit boat traffic on the south end, and boats would not be able to cross over the islands. Boat traffic will still be able to access the cove from the north end, and the restoration project will create a boating destination. Trump witness Pike opined that the County's project would negatively affect navigation between the upland parcels and the ICW because the project would eliminate the eastern and southern approaches and leave only the northern approach, which could not be used by both parcels fully. The County's expert, Dr. Nicholas De Gennarro, testified that, during his site visits, he observed boat traffic waiting for the drawbridges using the east side of the ICW away from the project site. Dr. De Gennarro noted that several existing structures are closer to the ICW than the proposed County project, which lies 220 feet away from the ICW. Thus, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that the project would not impact navigation in the ICW. With respect to ingress/egress, Dr. De Gennarro acknowledged that access to the Trump and Flagler properties would not be available from the southern and eastern approaches, but concluded that the restriction represented nothing more than an inconvenience. He noted that the southern approach was already a less preferable approach due to existing shoals. At present, there is very little boating in the area outside of special events. While the project would limit the use of boats directly over the one and one-half acres of mangrove islands, the project will provide a boating destination. Further, both the City docks to the north of the site and the temporary docks in front of Flagler's property –- both used for special events –- will still be available under the County's proposal. There is no swimming and very little fishing in the area because of the degraded conditions caused by the dredge hole. Accordingly, while the project will fill a small portion of water currently available, but not used, for swimming, it will greatly enhance swimming by providing a destination for swimmers. The mangroves planned for the intertidal islands are likely to reach a height of fifteen feet and will be interspersed with spartina. The seawall is located six feet above the water line, making a person's view at eye level already several feet above the water. Trump and Flagler's buildings are built at even higher elevations. Therefore, the mangroves will not substantially obscure the view from either property, even at street level where the view is already partially obscured by existing landscaping. The Lagoon is approximately 2,000 feet across. From north to south around one hundred acres of water can now be viewed from the vicinity. Since the intertidal islands only comprise one and one-half acres, the overall impact to the view of the water body is very small. The mangroves in the planters extending out from the seawall will be trimmed to one foot above the seawall; the County requested the condition and committed at hearing to trimming the mangroves if the City of West Palm Beach does not. County photographs show Trump and Flagler's present view of the water body and demonstrate the comparatively small percentage of the view affected by the one and one-half acres of mangrove islands. See County Exhibits 133a-e and 134a-d. The photographs also demonstrated that sizeable palm trees are already part of the existing view. Additionally, the County photographs depicted the small impact that trimmed mangrove planters would have on the view. The area obstructed by the mangrove islands and seagrass is negligible compared to the expanse of the existing view. Trump and Flagler offered no evidence to contradict the County's analysis regarding the scope of the impact on the view. Trump residents Dale McNulty, Dean Goodman, and Charles Lemoine testified that they personally would not want to view mangrove islands regardless of tree size or the size of the islands. Understandably, after years of unfettered view and an open expanse of water, they are opposed to any type of project in this area of the Lagoon. However, Mr. Goodman acknowledged that he would still be able to see the Town of Palm Beach from his unit. The evidence supports a finding that while the project will undoubtedly alter the view of the water from both Trump and Flagler's property, the impact on view is not so significant as to constitute an unreasonable infringement of their riparian rights. Mr. Lemoine stated that he had a forty-foot trawler that he would like to dock in front of his property. He currently docks the boat at a marina twenty miles north of the Trump property. He prefers to bring his boat in stern first and enter slips oriented north to south. He indicated that he can drive his boat in five feet of water, but prefers six feet; however, he also testified that he has brought his boat directly up to the bulkhead in front of Trump, which is approximately a two- or three-foot depth. The witness has seen sailboats and other boats moored near the bulkhead over extended timeframes. Mr. Lemoine speculated that Trump might seek a dock, either alone or in conjunction with Flagler, but admitted that Trump has never applied for a dock permit. He stated that Trump has had discussions about the possibility of a dock over the last fifteen years and speculated that a dock plan might include anything from the purchase/lease of the City docks to a lease of Trump's riparian interests to a third party. By contrast, Trump resident and former Board member Dean Goodman indicated "the idea was to provide an amenity [for] a number of people that are in the building that are boaters." Mr. Goodman stated that he hoped to be able to have a boat in front of the building someday, but did not own a boat in Florida. Association president Dale McNulty explained that, while informal discussions have occurred regarding the possibility of a dock, no official action had been taken. Mr. McNulty characterized the dock plans as being "sort of in the land of wishful thinking." Mr. Pike, while acknowledging that both parcels would still be able to design a dock for their property, opined that the County's project unreasonably limited the size and configuration of the docks possible. Mr. Pike initially admitted that a safe navigation depth for a forty-foot boat, or even a sailboat, was four feet below mean low water (MLW), but stated that he would prefer to design a dock with an additional two-to- three feet of water below the four-foot draft to avoid propeller damage. However, Mr. Pike conceded that he has designed docks for boats in four feet below MLW and ultimately based his own calculations on an assumption of a four-foot draft and one-foot cushion, or five feet below MLW. Mr. Pike also opined that a north-south alignment for boat slips was a preferred slip orientation. Given the bathymetry in the area and the documented seagrasses, Mr. Pike estimated that twenty slips could be designed for the Flagler property, rather than the thirty-four slips provided for by the County Manatee Protection Plan. He thought that a design might accommodate thirty to thirty-two slips for Trump, rather than the forty-slips provided for by the County Manatee Protection Plan. Based on the limitation on number of slips and configurations, the witness opined that the County's project would unreasonably interfere with Trump and Flagler's ability to design a dock. He admitted, though, that the numbers derived from the County Manatee Protection Plan represent a maximum number, rather than a specified or guaranteed number. He further admitted that other agency limitations may further restrict Trump and Flagler's right to dockage. Without a permit application or plan from Trump or Flagler, County witness Robbins concluded that the most reasonable assumption was an owner-oriented facility designed for the building owners/tenants. The County introduced a graphic illustrating areas available for dock construction, with sufficient depth for 35- to 40-foot boats (-6 feet NGVD) and with no seagrasses present. Rule 18-21.004(4)(b)2. limits ownership-oriented facilities generally to forty square feet for each foot of riparian shoreline, giving Trump the ability to apply for a dock that preempted a maximum of 16,000 square feet, and Flagler a maximum of 14,000 square feet. Under the County Manatee Protection Plan, Trump would be limited to forty slips; Flagler would have the potential for thirty-four slips. Mr. Robbins testified that, in his experience, a minus five MLW is a common depth for docks, but that elevations as shallow as a minus four MLW could be used depending on the type of boats and the dock configuration. Mr. Robbins explained that, even with the County's project in place and factoring in the other limitations, Trump would still have 61,842 square feet of potential space within which to design a dock. Flagler would still have 41,481 square feet of potential space, even considering the need to retain a path for ingress and egress from the Trump parcel. A more detailed analysis of the seagrasses might make more square footage available for dock construction. Dr. De Gennarro also evaluated whether a dock could be designed to serve Trump and Flagler's parcels. The vessel owner statistics for the County indicate that at least ninety-five percent of the boats registered in the County are thirty-nine feet or less; consequently, Dr. De Gennarro focused on boats forty feet or less. Dr. De Gennarro considered the water depths and the existence of subaquatic vegetations and concluded that the graphic presented by Mr. Robbins was conservative, but still provided adequate space for both Trump and Flagler to construct appropriate dockage, allowing thirty-eight boats for Trump and thirty-two for Flagler of varying size. However, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that a dock design of forty slips for each would also be possible, depending on the size of the boats. Dr. De Gennarro proposed that a single, double-loaded parallel dock design would be a good layout for a potential docking facility in front of both Trump and Flagler's property that would be protected by the County's proposed islands, provide sufficient water depths, and provide an attractive facility. He specified, however, that the single, double-loaded parallel dock design was simply one of "many" that might work in the given space. Dr. De Gennarro explained that the existing dredge hole would not be a preferable location for either a mooring field or a dock because the deep muck-bottom would drive up the costs for either type of facility. Accordingly, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that the County's project would not foreclose or even substantially restrict the ability to locate a dock in front of Trump and Flagler’s property. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that neither the right of ingress/egress nor the right to boat in the vicinity is unreasonably infringed upon by the County's project. Trump and Flagler will continue to have reasonable access to navigation. The northerly approach preserved by the County's project will allow for boat traffic to safely navigate in the area. While the southerly and easterly approaches are eliminated by the County's plan, the evidence indicates that the two approaches were less preferable than the northerly approach because of the presence of shoals. Based on the above considerations, the County's project will not unreasonably infringe upon Trump or Flagler's qualified right to a dock. The fact that the project might preclude the design and permitting of a dock that would host very large vessels does not mean that Trump and Flagler's rights regarding docking have been unreasonably infringed. The evidence shows that substantial docking facilities of multiple configurations are still possible even if the County's project is approved. In summary, the County's application for proprietary authorization should be approved. Other Contentions All other contentions raised by Trump and Flagler have been considered and are found to be without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order approving the County's application for a consolidated ERP and consent to use sovereignty submerged lands. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, John Jozsa, should have a $6,000.00 administrative penalty imposed, take corrective action, and pay investigative costs for allegedly dredging 0.91 acres of wetlands and filling 0.52 acres of wetlands without a permit on his property located in unincorporated Sumter County, Florida, as alleged in a Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (Notice) issued by Petitioner, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), on March 13, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The charges Respondent owns an approximate 4.5-acre parcel of land located at 1978 County Road 652A in unincorporated Sumter County, Florida. The parcel identification number is N29A003. The property is generally located east of Interstate 75, west of U.S. Highway 301, and just south of the City of Bushnell. According to aerial photographs, County Road 652A appears to begin at U.S Highway 301 and runs in a westerly direction where it forms the southern boundary of Respondent's parcel and terminates a short distance later. Southwest 80th Street also runs west from U.S. Highway 301 and forms the northern boundary of the property, while Southwest 20th Terrace runs in a north- south direction adjacent to its western boundary. Respondent purchased the parcel on September 27, 1993, and constructed a home on the site several years later. The property is contiguous to Mud Lake, a Class III waterbody lying to the southeast of Respondent's property. According to Respondent's Exhibit 2.b., at least a portion of the property is in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) 100-year flood zone. While conducting a site inspection near Respondent's property on September 27, 2006, Brian Brown, an Environmental Specialist III in the Department's Tampa District Office, heard "heavy equipment" operating nearby and drove to Respondent's home. There he observed a "tracked vehicle" resembling a bulldozer "knocking down trees" and grading an area that appeared to be wetlands. Mr. Brown took photographs of the cleared land and the tracked vehicle to confirm his observations. See Department's Exhibits 2a. through d. At hearing, Respondent acknowledged that he had borrowed the equipment from a friend, Leo, to "level and smooth" the "uplands" and "other areas." After returning to his office, Mr. Brown first confirmed through information from the Sumter County Appraiser's Office that Respondent owned the property in question. He then reviewed aerial photographs of Respondent's property taken in 1993, 1997, 2002, and 2006 to determine the condition of the property in earlier years. These photographs reflected that before 2006, the parcel had no large cleared area like the one that he had observed on the northern half of the property. Mr. Brown also studied a soil survey of the area to determine the type of soils on Respondent's property, and he reviewed the Florida Wetlands Delineation Manual which is used to determine if property is wetlands or uplands. Finally, information in the Department's database revealed that Respondent had not applied for a permit to conduct the observed activities. Based on this preliminary information, Mr. Brown generated a request for a formal inspection of Respondent's property by filling out a complaint form. (Respondent continues to believe that Mr. Brown was not conducting a "routine" inspection in the area but rather was in the area because a neighbor had filed a complaint; however, the complaint was triggered by Mr. Brown, who filed a complaint form himself based on the observations he made on September 27, 2006.) Mr. Brown then contacted Respondent by letter to set up a date on which the property could be formally inspected to verify "that Wetlands and or Surface Waters of the State are not being impacted." In response to Mr. Brown's letter, Respondent advised the Department that it could inspect his property. Around 1:30 p.m. on November 14, 2006, Mr. Brown and Lee W. Hughes, another Department employee, inspected Respondent's property to determine whether Respondent's activities were conducted within wetlands and to what extent wetlands were impacted. Respondent was present during the inspection. The employees' observations are memorialized in photographs received in evidence as Department's Exhibits 11A through 11N. The two observed a "large" area north of Respondent's home that had been totally cleared and deforested. The center of the cleared property had been dredged or scraped to create a pond-like area several feet lower than the adjoining land, while the soils removed from the pond-like area had been used to create sculptured white side-casting perhaps ten inches high on the edges of the pond, filling additional wetlands. However, the pond was empty because of drought conditions. The Department's inspection revealed that the cleared area was wetlands because of the presence of various plant species which are indicative of wetlands, including Swamp Tupelo, Red Maple, American Elm, Swamp Dogwood, Dahoon Holly, Buttonbush, Swamp Laurel Oak, Carolina Willow, Elderberry, Soft Rush, Smartweed, and Dayflower. Also, there were hydrologic indicators such as water stain lines, elevated lichen lines, and hypertrophied lenticels. Finally, there were hydric soils found on the property. This was confirmed by ground-truthing (an on- site evaluation of the wetlands and their parameters to verify the on-site conditions), which revealed dark top soil at least four inches thick and the presence of muck. Collectively, these indicators are sufficient to make a finding that the impacted area was wetlands. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-340.200 and Department's Exhibit 9. The fact that the "home-site ha[d] [not] been delineated [as wetlands] by any other governmental agency," as asserted by Respondent in his Proposed Recommended Order, is not dispositive of the issue. Respondent's assertion that no dredged materials were taken off-site, and no fill was brought onto the property, was not challenged. A second inspection was conducted by Mr. Brown and Lindsay L. Brock, then a Department employee, on December 19, 2006, for the purpose of mapping the actual size of the impacted area with Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) equipment.6 The second inspection was necessary since the Department's GPS equipment was inoperative during the first inspection. Based on Ms. Brock's GPS calculations, which have been received in evidence as Department's Exhibit 19, the Department determined that the total area dredged was 0.91 acres, while the filled area was 0.52 acres. The total impacted area was 1.4 acres of wetlands. This amount was calculated by measuring the size of the pond, 0.91 acres, with the side-casting accounting for the remaining 0.52 acres. During the inspection, the area was also photographed a second time, and these photographs have been received in evidence as Department's Exhibits 12A through 12K. An Enforcement Inspection Report (Report) was later prepared by Mr. Brown summarizing the findings of the two inspections. That Report has been received in evidence as Department's Exhibit 10 and Respondent's Exhibit 1.e. At hearing, Mr. Brown reaffirmed that the findings in the Report were correct. Specifically, the wetlands in the disturbed area were characterized as having a dominance of Obligate and Facultative Wet species and numerous hydrologic indicators, as well as soils typically found in wetlands. A jurisdictional determination established that the impacted property was wetlands; that there were adverse impacts caused by the violations, i.e., impacts described in Sections 3.2.3.2, 3.2.3.3, 3.2.3.4(a), and 3.2.3.7 of the Basis of Review of the Southwest Florida Water Management District; and that there were cumulative and secondary impacts associated with the violations, i.e., the actual loss of 1.4 acres of forested hardwood wetlands (Gum Swamp-613), habitat loss, the alteration in the normal flow of detrital material to Mud Lake, and the reduction in the system's ability to cycle and control nutrient and pollutant levels. Because the impacted lands were wetlands, a permit is required in order to perform any dredging and filling. See Fla. Admin. Code 62-343.050. The Report recommended that a Notice be issued. On February 13, 2007, the Department's Tampa District Office sent Respondent a Warning Letter advising him "of possible violations of law for which [he] may be responsible, and to seek [his] cooperation in resolving the matter." Department's Exhibit 22 and Respondent's Exhibit 1.h. The letter also requested that Respondent meet with Mr. Brown to discuss the alleged violations. A meeting was held at the District Office on March 12, 2007, but efforts to resolve the matter were unsuccessful. During the informal discussions between the parties, and prior to the issuance of a Notice, Respondent requested an exemption under Section 373.406(1) and (6), Florida Statutes.7 The first subsection provides that no Department rule, regulation, or order affects the right of any person to capture, discharge, and use water "for purposes permitted by law." The second subsection provides that the Department may exempt "those activities that the . . . department determines will have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the district." At hearing, Mr. Brown indicated that he did not respond to the exemption request because Respondent did not qualify. This is because dredging and filling of wetlands is not "permitted by law" without first obtaining a permit, and because, for the reasons cited in its Report, the Department construed the activities as having more than "minimal or insignificant" impacts. Given these circumstances, the statutory exemptions do not apply. The Notice was not issued until a year later on March 13, 2008. The reason for the delay is not of record. Besides contending that Mr. Brown's testimony was not credible, through examination of witnesses and the submission of various exhibits, Respondent raised numerous points to support his contentions that (a) the property is not wetlands, (b) no dredging or filling occurred, and (c) the activities are exempt from Department permitting requirements under several statutes.8 He also argued that the Department's decision to initiate an enforcement action against him was flawed or biased. The latter argument has been considered and rejected. Respondent first asserts that the wetlands on his property were already stressed and in bad condition, and that clearing the area and replanting vegetation in and around the pond area created a healthier environment for the vegetation and plants. While Mr. Brown conceded that the wetlands may have been stressed, that in itself does not cause the impacted property to lose its wetlands character, and a permit to dredge and fill the site is still required. Respondent also pointed out that the impacted area was dry before and after the activities occurred, and therefore the wetlands determination was incorrect. He further points out that the Department's representatives agreed that no water or moisture on the ground surface were observed during their two inspections. Given the number of wetland indicators found on the site even during drought conditions, the argument that the property is not wetlands has been rejected. See Finding of Fact 6, supra. Respondent also argued that an authoritative source (Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook) indicates that the soils in that area of the County are not the type typically found on wetlands. Specifically, the predominant soil on his property is identified as "Kanapaha sand, bouldery subsurface (25)," which is not considered a hydric soil. Mr. Brown explained, however, that notwithstanding what another source may state, it is necessary to verify the type of soil by performing field tests at the site. Ground-truthing performed during the first inspection confirmed the presence of soils typically found in wetlands. See Finding of Fact 7, supra. Respondent also questioned the accuracy of the Department's Exhibit 18, which is an aerial of Respondent's property created by Mr. Brown in February 2008 depicting a pond filled with water in the middle of the cleared area. Respondent contended that the map could not be accurate since the pond area was dry in February 2008 due to drought conditions. In response to this criticism, Mr. Brown noted that the map was not supposed to represent an actual aerial photograph taken in 2008. Rather, it was created for the purpose of superimposing on the property the pond-like area (with water added) observed during the 2006 inspections and was intended only to demonstrate the pond's size in relation to the size of the entire parcel. The exhibit was not tendered for the purpose of proving that the dredging and filling had occurred. Through examination of Mr. Brown, Respondent attempted to show that he qualified for a stormwater exemption under Section 403.813(2)(q), Florida Statutes, on the theory that his activities fell within the purview of that law. The statute exempts from permitting requirements the construction, operation, and maintenance of a stormwater management facility which is designed to "serve single-family residential projects, including duplexes, triplexes, and quadruplexes, if they are less than 10 acres total land and have less than 2 acres of impervious surface and if the facilities" satisfy three conditions. One condition is that the facility must "discharge into a stormwater discharge facility exempted or permitted by the department under this chapter which has sufficient capacity and treatment capability as specified in this chapter and is owned, maintained, or operated by a city, county, special district with drainage responsibility, or water management district . . . ." Id. Therefore, even if the pond-like area could be characterized as a stormwater facility, Respondent still does not meet the requirements of the statute since his "facility" does not discharge into another exempt or permitted facility as defined in the statute. In this case, the waters eventually discharge into Mud Lake, which was not shown to be an exempt or permitted stormwater facility. Respondent also questioned the manner in which the Department calculated the size of the impacted area for purposes of assessing an administrative penalty. See Department's Exhibit 21 and Respondent's Exhibit 1.j., in which penalties are assessed based on the dredged and filled areas each being "greater than one-half acre but less than or equal to one acre." Specifically, he argues that the combined dredged and filled areas exceed one acre in size, and under the terms of Section 403.121(3)(c), Florida Statutes, the administrative penalty schedule in the cited statute does not apply. To support this contention, Respondent noted that in responding to discovery, the Department acknowledged that the total impacted area was 1.4 acres. Section 403.121(3)(c), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part that "the administrative penalty schedule shall not apply to a dredge and fill violation if the area dredged or filled exceeds one acre." In assessing penalties under the statute, the Department considers the dredging and filling as two separate violations. See Counts I and II, Notice. Therefore, it did not combine the two impacted areas for purposes of calculating a penalty under the administrative penalty schedule. While the statute is inartfully drawn and is arguably susceptible to more than one interpretation, the Department's interpretation is a reasonable and permissible one, and its computation is hereby accepted. (If Respondent's construction of the statute was approved, and the two impacted areas were combined, this would not mean that the Department could not assess a penalty. Rather, it appears the Department would then have the choice of (a) filing an action in circuit court seeking the imposition of civil (rather than administrative) penalties, or (b) assessing an administrative penalty under Section 403.121(9), Florida Statutes, which did not exceed $5,000.00 per violation or $10,000.00 for all violations.) Respondent also contended that he was simply performing landscaping and gardening activities with a tracked vehicle, and that no "excavation" within the meaning of Section 373.403(13), Florida Statutes, occurred. That statute defines dredging as "excavation, by any means, in surface waters or wetlands."9 On the other hand, "filling" is defined in Section 373.403(14), Florida Statutes, as "the deposition, by any means, of materials in surface waters or wetlands." On this issue, the evidence shows that Respondent used a tracked vehicle to remove, scrape, and/or push soils from the wetlands to create the pond-like area and then deposited those materials in other wetlands around the sides of the pond to create the side casting. This activity constituted dredging and filling, as defined above. The remaining arguments of Respondent have been carefully considered and rejected. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Respondent engaged in dredging and filling in wetlands without a permit, as alleged in the Notice, and that the charges have been sustained. Mitigation In its Proposed Final Order, the Department contends that Respondent presented no mitigation and therefore the administrative penalties should not be reduced. Mitigating circumstances include, among other things, "good faith efforts [by the violator] to comply prior to or after discovery of the violations by the department." § 403.121(10), Fla. Stat. After the area was dredged and filled, Respondent replanted some trees and plants while landscaping his back yard. Also, prior to hearing, he engaged the services of two experts to prepare an evaluation of the charges in the Notice, inspect the property, and submit suggested corrective actions for restoring the impacted area to its original condition. Although the two experts did not appear at hearing, they did render reports which contained proposed corrective actions, and their work should arguably be construed as a good faith effort by Respondent to comply with the Department's requirement that the property be restored to its original condition. Corrective Actions The Department has proposed extremely lengthy and detailed corrective actions which are contained in paragraphs 17 through 31 of the Notice and are designed to restore the property to its original condition. (Presumably, these are standard corrective actions imposed in cases such as this for restoring dredged and filled wetlands.) At hearing, Mr. Brown described the nature and purpose of these conditions, which can generally be summarized as (a) requiring that the entire 1.43-acre area be filled and/or regraded to its original contour elevation so that the replanting efforts will be successful, and (b) requiring a rigorous replanting and five-year monitoring schedule. Paragraphs 17 through 31 are set forth below: Respondents [sic] shall forthwith comply with all Department rules regarding dredging and filling within a surface water or wetland. Respondent shall correct and redress all violations in the time periods required below and shall comply with all applicable rules in Fla. Admin. Code Chapter 62-343 and 62-340. Within 30 days of the effective date of this Notice of Violation, the Respondent shall attend a pre-construction conference with a representative of the Department's Environmental Resources staff to review the work authorized by this Notice of Violation. Prior to the commencement of any earthmoving authorized in this Notice of Violation, the Respondent shall properly install and maintain Erosion and Sedimentation Control devices around the impacted area to prevent siltation and turbid discharge in to adjacent wetlands and surface waters (See Figure 2 attached hereto and incorporated herein). The Erosion and Sedimentation Control devices (i.e. staked silt screen) shall be installed no further than one-foot from the toe of the impacted area and shall remain in place until the restoration actions are completed to the Department's satisfaction. The Respondent shall re-grade the approximate 1.43 acres of impacted wetland to a grade consistent with the adjacent, unaltered wetlands, as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 attached hereto and incorporated herein. (a) Only fill material excavated from the impacted area shall be used in the restoration of the site. If it is determined that there is an insufficient amount of the fill to obtain the required grade, the Respondent shall cease all work and notify the Department so an alternative restoration plan can be developed, if necessary. During and after re-grading, Respondent shall stabilize all side slopes as soon as possible to prevent erosion, siltation, or turbid run-off into waters of the State, but, in any event, no later than 72 hours after attaining final grade. Any re-grading or filling of the restoration areas shall be conducted so as not to affect wetlands and surface waters outside the restoration area. Within 30 days of completing the requirements outlined in paragraph 20 above and prior to planting, the Respondent shall submit a certified topographic survey of the 1.43 acres of restored wetlands to the Department for review and approval. The Department shall notify the Respondent if the re-grading is acceptable and whether the re- grading is at the correct elevation to ensure that the restoration area will function as a wetland as defined in Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Codes (sic). If the re- grading is unacceptable to the Department, Respondent shall have 21 days in which to correct the problems identified by the Department and shall submit a new survey upon completion of the required work. The survey shall include the following information for the restoration area: The boundary lines of the Respondent's property. Restoration area on the Respondent's Property (in total square footage or acres of restored wetlands)[.] Topographic survey of the restoration area completed by a certified land surveyor. The survey shall illustrate one-foot interval on 25 foot transects throughout the restoration area. The transects shall commence and terminate 30 feet beyond the limits of the restoration area. Once grading has been approved by the Department, the Respondent shall plant 270 of the following species in any combination throughout the 1.43-acres of restored wetlands: Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa syvatica), Red Maples (Acer rubrum), American Elm (Ulmus Americana L.), Swamp Dogwood (Cornus amomum Mill.), [and] Dahoon Holly (Ilex cassine L.). The tree species shall be planted on 15 foot- centers throughout the restoration area and shall be 3-gallon, well-rooted, nursery grown stock. Within 30 days of completion of the planting outlined in paragraph 24 above, the Respondent shall submit a "Time Zero" Monitoring Report, which includes the following information: Respondent's name, address, and OGC Case number; Date the Corrective Actions were completed; Enough color photographs to accurately depict the completion of the wetland restoration actions outlined in paragraphs 20 through 24 above. The photographs shall be taken from fixed reference points shown on a plan-view drawing; Nursery receipts for all plants used in the Restoration Action; Number, size and spacing of each species planted; and Description of any exotic vegetation removal or control conducted to date including the acreage of exotic vegetation removal and how vegetation removal or control was conducted. Subsequent monitoring reports shall be submitted for a period of 5 years following completion of the Corrective Actions: semi- annually for the first year and annually for year two through five. The purpose of the monitoring shall be to determine the "success of the restoration." The monitoring reports shall include the following information: Respondent's name, address, and OGC Case number; Date the inspection was completed; Color photographs taken from the same fixed reference points previously established during the Time-Zero monitoring report so Department personnel can observe the current site conditions and evaluate the success of the restoration plan; The percentage of each planted tree species within the restoration area that has survived; The average height of the planted tree species; The percent canopy cover by planted tree species within the restoration area; a tree shall be defined as a woody species that has a diameter at breast height (DBH) of at least 1.5 inches and a vertical height of 10 feet as measured from the substrate; The percent cover within the restoration area by planted and naturally recruiting native, "non-nuisance," wetland species, as defined in Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code; The percent cover of Brazilian Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), Water Primrose (Ludwigia peruviana) and other nuisance species including those species listed or not listed in Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code; and A written summary describing the success of the restoration area including steps needed and/or taken to promote future success such as replanting and/or nuisance or exotic species removal. Description should also include water levels observed within the restoration area. "Success of the Restoration" means at the end of the monitoring schedule the following success criteria are met in the restoration area: The total percent cover within the restoration area by native wetland vegetation exceeds 85 percent; Average height of the planted tree species exceeds 10-feet; The total percent canopy cover by planted and naturally recruited native wetland trees exceeds 30 percent; The total contribution to percent cover by nuisance, non-wetland or species not listed in Rule 62-340, Florida Administrative Code is less than 10 percent; and The Department has inspected the restoration area and the Department has informed the Respondent in writing that the restoration area meets the definition of a wetland as defined in Rule 62-340.200, Florida Administrative Code. If it is determined by the Department, based on visual inspection and/or review of the monitoring reports, that the restoration area is not meeting the above specified success criteria, an alternative Restoration Plan shall be submitted to the Southwest District Office and shall meet the following requirements: Shall submit the plan within 30 days of notification by the Department of failure to meet the success criteria. Shall implement the alternative plan no later than 90 days after receiving Department approval. Shall restart monitoring and maintenance program. Should the property be sold during the monitoring period, the Respondent shall remain responsible for the monitoring and notify the new owners of the Respondent's obligation to continue the monitoring and maintenance until the Department has determined that the success criteria has been met. The Respondent shall notify the new owner(s) of this in writing and shall provide the Department with a copy of the notification document within 15 days of the sale of the property. Prior to the submittal of each required monitoring report, the Respondent shall remove all exotic and nuisance vegetation from the restored wetland area. Nuisance and exotic vegetation removal shall include but not be limited to Brazilian Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and Water Primrose (Ludwigia peruviana). All exotic vegetation shall be removed from the restoration area using hand-held equipment in a manner that will minimize impacts to the existing wetland plants and will not cause ruts in the wetland soils, which will impede or divert the flow of surface waters. More than any other aspect of this case, Respondent questions the nature and extent of the corrective actions being proposed by the Department on the ground they are too extensive, complex, and unnecessary and will cost tens of thousands of dollars. When asked to quantify or estimate the cost of the corrective actions, Mr. Brown could not. It is fair to infer, however, that the cost of the restoration work will be expensive and probably far exceed the amount of the proposed penalties. The two experts' reports, which are hearsay and cannot be used as a basis for a finding of fact, essentially corroborate Respondent's argument that the corrective actions may be onerous and too far-reaching. The difficulty, however, in evaluating Respondent's claim is that the record is limited to Mr. Brown's testimony justifying the conditions, the hearsay reports of the two experts, and a few exhibits tendered by Respondent. A precise description of the impacted area before the work was undertaken is not a part of the record at hearing. Therefore, the original condition is not known. Through the submission of exhibits and the questioning of Mr. Brown, Respondent contended that a natural depression existed in the area where the pond now sits, that he was merely leveling off the depression while removing dead trees and plants, and that very little soil was actually removed from the pond area. Given these circumstances, he contends that there are insufficient fill materials on site to bring the pond to grade. In his Exhibit 3, Respondent estimates that just to fill the pond area and bring it to the grade of the surrounding land, he would be required to haul in approximately 4,200 cubic yards of sand or fill material. Also, Respondent's Exhibit 2.c. purports to be a copy of an elevation survey of the property containing elevations at different points on the property. The handwritten numbers on the exhibit, which Respondent represents were taken from a certified survey (which is not otherwise identified), reflect the property (presumably before the work was undertaken) gradually sloping from a higher elevation on the southern boundary (around 67 feet) to the road on the northern boundary (around 66 feet), with a lower elevation of around 64 feet in the middle of the parcel, indicating a slightly lower elevation in the middle of the property. Also, a part of the property lies within the FEMA 100- year flood zone. Thus, it is fair to infer that the pond area replaced an area with a slight depression and on which water would accumulate during heavy storm events. This circumstance would logically reduce the amount of fill necessary to restore the pond area to its original contour elevation. Therefore, in implementing the corrective actions, the Department should give consideration, in the manner it deems appropriate, to the fact that the area contained a natural depression before the illicit activities occurred. The evidence supports a finding that the proposed corrective actions, although extensive and costly, should be approved. To the extent Respondent has replanted the impacted area with trees and plants that fit within the Department's restoration scheme, he should also be credited for this work. Reasonable costs and expenses The Department established at hearing that its Tampa District Office employees incurred expenses of more than $500.00 while investigating this matter. This is based upon the number of hours devoted to the case times the hourly salary rate of the employees. Therefore, the Department is entitled to be reimbursed in the amount of $500.00 for reasonable investigative expenses and costs. Respondent has not disputed the amount of time expended by the employees or their hourly compensation but contends in his Proposed Recommended Order that the matter could have been cleared up by a "simple phone call and a few minutes of effort." Respondent's argument is hereby rejected.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert Brown, is the co-owner of Lot 13 and the northern half of Lot 14, Block 7, Lake Addition to Boynton in Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. The property consists of a parcel approximately 150 by 150 feet and is located along the western edge of the Intra-coastal Waterway at N.E. 8th Ave. and N.E. 7th Street in Boynton Beach. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner was the owner of this property which is vegetated along the Eastern half with mature mangrove trees which extend back from the water's edge approximately one half the depth of the lot. These mangroves include red, black, and white species and the larger are approximately between 18 and 22 years old. The majority of the trees, however, are younger than that. The Western half of the property is sparsely vegetated and in the heavily vegetated half, there is an open area approximately 30 by 30 feet which appears to have been cleared and on which there are no mature mangrove trees. On July 19, 1984, Petitioner filed an application for a permit to construct a 1625 square foot house on pilings together with a 164 by 4 foot boardwalk extending in a west to east direction from the westernmost edge of the mangrove community to the waterside of the proposed dwelling giving access thereto. The eastern half of the property in question appears to be lower in elevation than the western half and experiences some tidal inundation during periods of high tide. Though there is a riprap deposit along the eastern edge of the property and two berms extending along the landward side of the riprap, water from the Intra-coastal Waterway periodically flows through the riprap, over the berms, and onto Petitioner's property. This water is afforded access onto the property also, by a northwest running ditch located south of the southern boundary of the property which ditch is connected to the waterway. It intersects with another ditch which runs due north to an intersection with an east-west depression, also connected to the Waterway, running along the northern boundary of the property. Mangroves of some size are found in and on the edges of this ditch. Petitioner's construction proposal, involving the driving of supporting pilings for the dwelling, is a dredge and fill activity as defined by the Department of Environmental Regulation's (DER), experts and requires the issue of a dredge and fill permit. There is a conflict between the Petitioner's evidence regarding the physical location of his proposed dwelling and boardwalk and that of the agency personnel who, with benefit of a survey, determined that the larger clearing referenced by the Petitioner does not lie on his property and that the indicated cleared cut through the mangrove community to the waterway on Petitioner's property for the walkway does not lie on Petitioner's property but instead is approximately 30 feet south of the southern boundary. Having reviewed the application submitted by Petitioner, DER requested additional information regarding construction techniques and plans. These have not, to this date submitted in a tangible form the information requested. Petitioner's attorney provided some of the information requested orally to DER at some time in the past, giving some assurances that the disruption of water quality during construction would be kept at a minimum and would be only temporary. However, since DER did not have available to it the additional information it requested so as to appropriately evaluate the true proposal by Petitioner and the effect of any modifications, based on the failure of Petitioner to provide adequate assurances that water quality standards would not be violated and that the project was not contrary to public interest as is required of him by Section 403.918, Florida Statutes, on January 23, 1985, the Department issued an intent to deny the permit. As a part of this intent to deny, the agency suggested that the project be relocated to the upland one-half of the Petitioner's property. Construction there would not have involved any mangrove disturbance and would have been consistent with the agency's standards and policies. Historically the property owned by Mr. Brown did not border the open body of water which now constitutes Lake Worth or the Intra-coastal Waterway. As far back as 1872, the property was dry and supported no mangrove growth. Mangroves existing currently on the property have developed there since the construction of the Intra-coastal Waterway and its joinder with Lake Worth and the installation of the inlets which connect this water body with the Atlantic Ocean. On the property directly north of Petitioner's boundary sits a house built on fill approximately one and a half feet above the gradient of Mr. Brown's lot. Immediately south of his property is a condominium building also located on fill bordering the Intra-coastal Waterway. Evaluation of photographs of the area reveals that both pieces appear to have been identical in make-up to that owned by Petitioner in both topography and vegetation prior to being filled for construction. In fact, this parcel lies in a rapidly developing commercial and residential area. Petitioner also presented the testimony of two long time residents of the area who indicate that prior to the widening of the Intra-coastal Waterway, Petitioner's property did not border the open water of Lake Worth or the waterway. Back in the 1940's and before, the property was not covered with mangrove trees and was, in fact, used as farmland by Mr. Pinder, one of these two witnesses, who grew bell peppers and squash there. Mr. Pinder was hired by Palm Beach County during the 1940's and 1950's to dig mosquito control ditches on the property and Petitioner contends that it was these ditches which developed the connection with the Intra-coastal Waterway and thereby created a jurisdictional wetland. The weight of the evidence, however, indicates that though ditches were dug for mosquito control as described by Mr. Pinder and even before, it was not these ditches which changed the character of the property to jurisdictional wetland. Review of the maps submitted by Mr. Brown shows to a very limited degree some reference to ditches on or near the property in question but neither this evidence nor the testimony of both long-time residents is sufficiently clear and convincing to establish to the satisfaction of the Hearing Officer that the character of Mr. Brown's property was so radically changed by the digging of these ditches as to become jurisdictional because of them. Turning to the question of the impact of the proposed construction on the mangrove system, the evidence presented by the agency and to a lesser degree by Petitioner himself shows that there would be some adverse impact on the mangrove system through the direct destruction of some existing trees and saplings, the trimming of some of the overhanging mangrove canopy, and the subsequent shading of immature mangroves by the construction of the dwelling and the boardwalk. The evidence available indicates that the construction of the dwelling itself cannot be contained within the existing clearing and for the construction of the boardwalk, an additional cut and shading will be required. Mangroves play an important part in the water quality and biological considerations of Section 403.918 Florida Statutes. The deterioration of fallen mangrove vegetation constitutes an important part in the food chain of fish and small invertebrates. Existing trees and roots provide habitat for various birds, invertebrates, mammals, and reptiles and the water quality considerations relating to the filtering of run-off water from uplands and the assimilation of pollutants in the passing water is significant. DER was and is concerned that the proposed project does not provide reasonable or adequate assurances that water quality standards will not be violated. Turbidity, transparency, and dissolved oxygen standards may well be violated during the construction phase and the agency's concerns have not been addressed or lessened by Petitioner's unformed proposals for modification. The fourth standard, that involving biological integrity, will be a continuing and ongoing consideration due to the fact that the shading created by the house and boardwalk will be constant. After full consideration of the application and those limited matters submitted in response to the agency's expression of concern, the agency has concluded that the project will adversely impact the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats in the area; will adversely affect fishing and recreational values and marine productivity; will adversely effect current and relative values of functions performed in the area; and will be of a permanent nature. The agency has not, however, quantified these negative effects or demonstrated that they will be of any significant magnitude. It is difficult to conceive that in an area already violated by the encroachment of civilization as demonstrated by the unrestrained fill both to the north and to the south of Petitioner's property, that the preservation of a relatively miniscule enclave, on highly valuable waterfront property, will have any substantial beneficial effect on the overall biological, ecological, or water quality considerations of the Intra-coastal Waterway, Lake Worth, or the Atlantic Ocean. The construction disruption will be minimal and for a limited period of time. The effects of shading will be of a longer duration but would appear to be miniscule in comparison to the surrounding area. DER and its subordinate associate, the Palm Beach County Health Department, both recommend that the application be denied because of Petitioner's failure to provide reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards and will not be contrary to the public interest. The cumulative impact concerns of both DER and the Health Department are valid in theory but inappropriate here. Evidence that the recent mangrove destruction in this area has been been extensive cannot be debated. No doubt it has been. The fact remains, however, that this property is in a highly desirable location. The area has not been preserved by the State in its program for the accumulation and preservation of wetlands under a state umbrella and is of such a small size that the cumulative impact to be felt from the limited destruction of mangroves here would be minimal. There is some evidence to indicate that a permit was issued to a previous owner of this property allowing the destruction of mangrove seedlings in the western section of the community and this action has not been undertaken. This permit has not expired and is transferable to Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue permit number 5008992206 to the Petitioner, Robert 8rown for the construction of the house and walkway as proposed, under the provision of adequate and firm reasonable safeguards to minimize water quality disruption during construction by Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of February, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this llth day of February, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 325-C Clematis Street West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire Douglas MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 APPENDIX 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 to this case. By the Petitioner 1 Incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 2 & 3. 3 & 4. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 10. 7 & 8. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 9 & 11 Incorporated in Finding of Fact 11. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 3 6 13. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 7 & 8. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 7 & 8. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. By the Respondent Incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. 3 & 4. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 2 & 4. 5. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. 6. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 3 & 6. 7. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 6. 8. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 7. 9 & 10. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 8. 11 Incorporated in Finding of Fact 13. 12. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 14. 13. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 15. 14-16. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 16. 17. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 15. 18. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 17. 19 & 20. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 11. 21-24 Incorporated in Findings of Fact 11 & 12. 25. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 17 & 18. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION ROBERT BROWN, Petitioner, DOAH CASE NO. 85-0517 OGC FILE NO. 85-0122 vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION Respondent. /
The Issue The issue is whether the City's applications for an individual stormwater permit and a noticed general environmental resource permit for Phase 1A of the proposed Hogtown Creek Greenway should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In these two cases, Respondent, City of Gainesville (City), seeks the issuance of a stormwater system management permit (stormwater permit) to construct a 2,000-foot long asphaltic trail/boardwalk, a parking facility and associated improvements for Phase 1A of the Hogtown Creek Greenway project in the north central portion of the City. That matter is docketed as Case No. 97-2845. The City also seeks the issuance of a noticed general environmental resource permit (NGP) to construct 481 square feet of piling supported structures over wetlands or surface waters for the same project. That matter has been assigned Case No. 97-2846. Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), is the regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving the requested permits. Petitioner, Greenspace Preservation Association, Inc., is a not-for-profit Florida corporation primarily composed of persons who own real property adjacent to the route proposed by the City, as well as local environmental interests. Petitioners, Frank Ward, Sal Locascio, Frederick P. Peterkin, and Harold M. Stahmer, are individuals who own real property adjacent to the route proposed by the City for the Greenway. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners are substantially affected by the District's proposed action and thus have standing to initiate these cases. On March 28, 1997, the City filed applications for a stormwater permit and a NPG for Phase IA of the Hogtown Creek Greenway project. After conducting a review of the applications, including an on-site visit to the area, in May 1997, the District proposed to issue the requested permits. On June 9, 1997, Petitioners timely filed a Petition for Initiation of Formal Proceedings as to both intended actions. As amended and then refined by stipulation, Petitioners generally allege that, as to the stormwater permit, the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project meets the permitting requirements of the District; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the stormwater system will not cause violations of state water quality standards; the City has failed to provide reasonable asurance that the project satisfies the District's minimum required design features; and the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the stormwater system is capable of being effectively operated and maintained by the City. As to the NPG, Petitioners generally allege that the piling supported structure is not less than 1,000 square feet; the jurisdictional wetlands are greater than the area shown on the plans submitted by the City; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system will not significantly impede navigation; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system does not violate state water quality standards; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system does not impede the conveyance of a watercourse in a manner that would affect off-site flooding; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system will not cause drainage of wetlands; and the City failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system does not adversely impact aquatic or wetland dependent listed species. Respondents deny each of the allegations and aver that all requirements for issuance of the permits have been met. In addition, the City has requested attorney's fees and costs under Section 120.595(1)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), on the theory that these actions were filed for an improper purpose. A General Description of the Project The Hogtown Creek Greenway is a long-term project that will eventually run from Northwest 39th Street southward some seven miles to the Kanapaha Lake/Haile Sink in southwest Gainesville. These cases involve only Phase 1A of that project, which extends approximately one-half mile. This phase consists of the construction of a 2,000-foot long asphaltic concrete trail/boardwalk, a timber bridge and boardwalk, a parking facility, and associated improvements. The trail will extend from the Loblolly Environmental Facility located at Northwest 34th Street and Northwest 5th Avenue, to the intersection of Northwest 8th Avenue and Northwest 31st Drive. The trail will have a typical width of ten feet. For the majority of its length, the trail will be constructed of asphaltic concrete overlying a limerock base, and it will generally lie at the existing grade and slope away from the creek. Besides the trail, additional work involves the repaving of Northwest 5th Avenue with the addition of a curb and gutter, the construction of an entrance driveway, paved and grassed parking areas, and sidewalks at the Loblolly Environmental Facility, and the widening and addition of a new turn lane and pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of Northwest 8th Avenue and Northwest 31st Drive. The Stormwater Permit Generally The entire Phase IA project area lies within the Hogtown Creek 10-year floodplain. It also lies within the Hogtown Creek Hydrologic Basin, which basin includes approximately 21 square miles. The project area for the proposed stormwater permit is 4.42 acres. Water quality criteria Phase IA of the Greenway will not result in discharges into surface groundwater that cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards. When a project meets the applicable design criteria under the District's stormwater rule, there is a presumption that the project will not cause a violation of state water quality standards. There are two dry retention basins associated with the project. Basin 1 is located at the cul-de-sac of Northwest 5th Avenue and will capture and retain the stormwater runoff from the new and reconstructed impervious areas at the Loblolly Facility. Basin 2 is located at the parking area and will capture and retain stormwater runoff at the existing building and proposed grass parking area. Under the stormwater rule, the presumptive criteria for retention basins require that the run-off percolate out of the basin bottom within 72 hours. The calculations performed by the City's engineer show that the two retention basins will recover within that timeframe. In making these calculations, the engineer used the appropriate percolation rate of ten inches per hour. Even using the worst case scenario with a safety factor of twenty and a percolation rate of one-half inch per hour, the two retention basins will still recover within 72 hours. The presumptive criteria for retention basins require that the basin store a volume equal to one inch of run-off over the drainage area or 1.25 inches of run-off over the impervious area plus one-half inch of run-off over the drainage area. The calculations performed by the City's engineer show that the two retention basins meet the District's volume requirements for retention systems. An applicant is not required to utilize the presumptive design criteria, but instead may use an alternative design if the applicant can show, based on calculations, tests, or other information, that the alternative design will not cause a violation of state water quality standards. As a general rule, the District applies its stormwater rule so that water quality treatment is not required for projects or portions of projects that do not increase pollutant loadings. This includes linear bicycle/pedestrian trails. The City's proposed trail will not be a source of pollutants. The City will install signs at both entrances to the trail to keep out motorized vehicles. Except for emergency and maintenance vehicles, motorized vehicles will not be permitted on the trail. The infrequent use by emergency or maintenance vehicles will not be sufficient to create water quality concerns. The construction of a treatment system to treat the stormwater from the trail would provide little benefit and would only serve to unnecessarily impact natural areas. Although treatment of the stormwater run-off from the trail portion of the project is not required under District rules, the run-off will receive treatment in the vegetated upland buffer adjacent to the trail. The District's proposed other condition number 3 will require the City to plant vegetation in unvegetated and disturbed areas in the buffer. This will reduce the likelihood of erosion or sedimentation problems in the area of the trail. Although disputed at hearing, it is found that the City's engineer used the appropriate Manning coefficient in the calculations regarding the buffer. Even without a vegetated buffer, run-off coming from the bicycle trail will not violate state water quality standards. The City will install appropriate erosion and sediment controls. These include siltation barriers along the entire length of both sides of the proposed trail prior to commencing construction. Such barriers will not allow silt or other material to flow through, over, or under them. The City will also place hay bales and any other silt fencing necessary to solve any erosion problem that may occur during construction. In addition, the permit will require an inspection and any necessary repairs to the siltation barriers at the end of each day of construction. Saturation of the limerock bed under the paved portion of the trail is not expected to cause a problem because heavy vehicles will not regularly use the trail. The trail portion of the project can be adequately maintained to avoid deterioration. Sensitive Karst Areas Basin criteria The two proposed dry retention basins for Phase 1A are located within the District's Sensitive Karst Areas Basin. They include all of the minimum design features required by the District to assure adequate treatment of the stormwater before it enters the Floridan aquifer and to preclude the formation of solution pipe sinkholes in the stormwater system. There will be a minimum of three feet of unconsolidated soil material between the surface of the limestone bedrock and the bottom and sides of the two retention basins. The appropriate mechanism for determining the depth of limestone is to do soil borings. The soil borings performed by the City show that there is at least three feet of unconsolidated material between the bottom of the basins and any limerock where the borings were taken. In other words, limestone would not be expected to be within three feet of the bottom of either basin. Based on the soil boring results, the seasonal high water table is at least six feet below ground level. The depth of the two retention basins will be less than ten feet. Indeed, the depth of the basins will be as shallow as possible and will have a horizontal bottom with no deep spots. To make the retention basins any larger would require clearing more land. A large shallow basin with a horizontal bottom results in a lower hydraulic head and therefore is less potential for a sinkhole to form. Before entering the basins, stormwater will sheet flow across pavement and into a grass swale, thereby providing some dispersion of the volume. Finally, the two retention basin side slopes will be vegetated. Special condition number 7 provides that if limestone is encountered during excavation of a basin, the City must over- excavate the basin and backfill with three feet of unconsolidated material below the bottom of the basin. Drainage and flood protection Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, the project will not adversely affect drainage or flood protection on surrounding properties. The trail will be constructed generally at existing grade. Because the trail will be constructed at existing grade, the net volume of fill necessary for Phase 1A is approximately zero. Therefore, there will not be a measurable increase in the amount of runoff leaving the site after construction, and the trail will not result in an increase in off-site discharges. District rules require that the proposed post- development peak rate of discharge from a site not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge for the mean annual storm only for projects that exceed fifty percent impervious surface. The proposed project has less than fifty percent impervious surface. Even though it is not required, the City has demonstrated that the post-development rate of discharge will not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge. Both basins will retain the entire mean annual storm so that the post-development rate of discharge is zero. Even during a 100-year storm event, the retention basins willl not discharge. Therefore, there will not be any increase in floodplain elevations during the 10, 25, or 100-year storm events from the proposed project. Operation and maintenance entity requirements The applicable requirements of Chapter 40C-42, Florida Administrative Code, regarding operation and maintenance, have been met by the applicant. The City proposes itself as the permanent operation and maintenance entity for the project. This is permissible under District regulations. The duration for the operation and maintenance phase of the permit is perpetual. The City has adequate resources and staff to maintain the phase 1A portion of the project. The public works department will maintain the stormwater management system out of the City's utility fund. The City provides periodic inspections of all of its stormwater systems. These inspections are paid for out of the collected stormwater fees. The City will also conduct periodic inspections of the project area, and the two retention basins will be easily accessed by maintenance vehicles. The City will be required to submit an as-built certification, signed and sealed by a professional engineer, once the project is constructed. Monthly inspections of the system must be conducted looking for any sinkholes or solution cavities that may be forming in the basins. If any are observed, the City is required to notify the District and repair the cavity or sinkhole. Once the system is constructed, the City will be required to submit an inspection report biannually notifying the District that the system is operating and functioning in accordance with the permitted design. If the system is not functioning properly, the applicant must remediate the system. The City will be required to maintain the two retention basins by mowing the side slopes, repairing any erosion on the side slopes, and removing sediment that accumulates in the basins. Mowing will be done at least six times per year. The City will stabilize the slopes and bottom areas of the basins to prevent erosion. The City has a regular maintenance schedule for stormwater facilities. The project will be included within the City's regular maintenance program. The City has budgeted approximately $80,000.00 for maintenance of the trail and vegetated buffer. Also, it has added new positions in its budget that will be used to maintain and manage the Greenway system. Finally, City staff will conduct daily inspections of the Phase 1A trail looking for problems with the vegetated buffer, erosion problems along the trail, and sediment and debris in the retention basin. If the inspections reveal any problems, the staff will take immediate action to correct them. The Noticed General Environmental Resource Permit Generally By this application, the City seeks to construct 481 square feet of piling supported structures over wetlands or surface waters. The proposed structures include a 265 square foot timber bridge over an un-vegetated flow channel, which connects a borrow area to Possum Creek, and a 216 square foot boardwalk over two small wetland areas located south of the flow channel. None of the pilings for the bridge or boardwalk will be in wetlands, and no construction will take place in Hogtown or Possum Creeks. The paved portion of the trail will not go through wetlands, and there will be no dredging or filling in wetlands. The receiving waters for the project are Hogtown and Possum Creeks. Both are Class III waters. Hogtown Creek originates in north central Gainesville and flows southwest to Kanapaha Lake/Haile Sink in southwest Gainesville. Possum Creek originates in northwest Gainesville and flows southeast to its confluence with Hogtown Creek south of the proposed bridge structure. Wetlands The total area of the proposed bridge and boardwalk over surface water or wetlands is approximately 481 square feet. The wetland delineation shown on the City's Exhibit 5A includes all of the areas in the project area considered to be wetlands under the state wetland delineation methodology. The United State Army Corps of Engineers' wetland line includes more wetlands than the District wetland line. The former wetland line was used to determine the area of boardwalk and bridge over wetlands. Even using this line, however, the total area of boardwalk over surface waters or wetlands is approximately 481 square feet and is therefore less than 1,000 square feet. Navigation The proposed system does not significantly impede navigation. Further, the structures will span a wetland area and an un-vegetated flow channel, both of which are non-navigable. In fact, the flow channel generally exhibits little or no flow except after periods of rainfall. Water quality The construction material that will be used for the bridge and boardwalk will not generate any pollutants. Morever, chemical cleaners will not be used on those structures. Silt fences will be used and vegetation will be planted in the vicinity of the bridge and boardwalk to prevent erosion and sedimentation problems. The amount of erosion from drip that comes off the boardwalk will be minimal. Therefore, the bridge and boardwalk will not cause a violation of state water quality standards. Off-site flooding The project will not impede conveyance of any stream, river, or other water course which would increase off-site flooding. The structures will completely span the wetland areas and flow channel, and no part of the structures, including the pilings, will lie within any water or wetland areas including the flow channel. There will be a span of 2.5 to 3 feet from the horizontal members of the bridge and boardwalk down to the ground surface which will allow water to pass through unobstructed. Further, there will not be any cross ties or horizontal obstructions on the lower portions of the boardwalk or bridge pilings. Further, due to the spacing of the pilings, the boardwalk and bridge will not trap sufficient sediment such as leaves to impede the conveyance of the flow channel. Therefore, conveyance through the flow channel will not be affected by the structures. Because the boardwalk and bridge are not over Hogtown or Possum Creeks, they will not cause any obstruction to the conveyance of the creeks. Aquatic and wetland dependent listed species The project will not adversely affect any aquatic or wetland dependent listed species. These species are defined by District rule as aquatic or wetland dependent species listed in Chapter 39-27, Florida Administrative Code, or 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 17. No such species are known to exist in the project area, and none are expected to exist in the location and habitat type of the project area. Therefore, contrary to Petitioners' assertions, there are no listed salamander, frog, turtle, or lizard species known to occur within the Hogtown Creek basin. Although it is possible that the box turtle may be found in the project area, it is not an aquatic or wetland dependent listed species. One baby American alligator (between two and three feet in length) was observed in the borrow pit area of the project on September 11, 1997. Except for this sighting, no other listed animal species have been observed in the project area. As to the alligator, the only area in which it could nest would be in the existing excavated borrow pit, and none of the proposed construction will take place in that area. More than likely, the alligator had walked into the area from Clear Lake, Kanapaha Prairie, or Lake Alice. The proposed structures will not affect the movement of the alligator nor its feeding habits. Drainage of wetlands Because the boardwalk and bridge are elevated structures over waters and wetlands, and the City has not proposed to construct ditches or other drainage systems, the proposed system will not cause drainage of the wetlands. Coral/macro-marine algae/grassbeds The proposed system is not located in, on, or over coral communities, macro/marine algae, or a submerged grassbed community. D. Were the Petitions Filed for an Improper Purpose? Prior to the filing of their petitions, Petitioners did not consult with experts, and they prepared no scientific investigations. Their experts were not retained until just prior to hearing. Petitioners are citizens who have genuine concerns with the project. They are mainly longtime residents of the area who fear that the Greenway will not be properly maintained by the City; it will increase flooding in the area; it will cause water quality violations; and it will attract thousands of persons who will have unimpeded access to the back yards of nearby residents. Although these concerns were either not substantiated at hearing or are irrelevant to District permitting criteria, they were nonetheless filed in good faith and not for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order approving the applications of the City of Gainesville and issuing the requested permits. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Samuel A. Mutch, Esquire 2790 Northwest 43rd Street Suite 100, Meridien Centre Gainesville, Florida 32606 Jennifer B. Springfield, Esquire Mary Jane Angelo, Esquire Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Richard R. Whiddon, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1110 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1110
The Issue The issues to he determined in this matter concern the question of whether it is necessary for the Petitioner to obtain a dredge and fill permit from the Respondent prior to the construction of a road. Should it be found that the Respondent has jurisdiction to require a permit prior to such construction, the related question of the Petitioner's entitlement to a dredge and fill permit as envisioned by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code, must also be resolved.
Findings Of Fact The property which is the subject of this dispute is located in Clay County, Florida, south of the city of Orange Park, Florida, adjacent to Blanding Boulevard which is also known as State Road 21. The project at issue contemplates the relocation of a portion of a road known as Hear Run Boulevard, which presently intersects with Blanding Boulevard. The present configuration of Hear Run Boulevard serves a building housing the Clay County Courthouse Annex, which has also been referred to as a tag agency building, and a subdivision known as Bear Run Subdivision. If the alternate road were constructed it would serve the same purpose in terms of utility. That construction would involve the placement of fill material in a cleared area over which Respondent asserts permit jurisdiction under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner does not believe that Respondent has jurisdiction to require a permit; however, if the permit is needed, Petitioner believes that it is entitled to the grant of a permit. As presently envisioned, it would be necessary to place approximately .48 acres of fill to construct the road. The relative location of the present Bear Run Boulevard, Blanding Boulevard, and the relocated Dear Run Boulevard are depicted in Petitioner's exhibit number 3, admitted into evidence. Petitioner had cleared the site of the proposed realignment of Bear Run Boulevard, prior to the fall of 1981. As a consequence, determination of the jurisdictional limits of the Department of Environmental Regulation, by the use of indicator species set forth in Rule 17-4.02, Florida Administrative Code, in establishing' the upland reach of waters of the state for permitting purposes was made more difficult than normal. Nonetheless, in September, 1981, as modified in November, 1981, Timothy Deuerling, Respondent's employee, in conjunction with Thad Hart of the United States Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, examined parcels of land adjacent to the site in question, which parcels are roughly to the east and west of the area in question and having identified plants found within the indicator species list of Rule 17-4.02, Florida Administrative Code, in sufficient numbers, established the jurisdictional limits of the Respondent's permit authority immediately below the present location of Bear Run Boulevard. In September, 1981, the swamp area south of the cleared property had been seen by Deuerling to be characterized by bald cypress, ash, blackgum and titi . In effect, an imaginary line was drawn between the wetland species on the adjacent sides of the site through the Petitioner's property with that portion of the site found roughly to the south of the imaginary line being considered within the waters of the state and property roughly to the north of the line being regarded as uplands and beyond the jurisdiction of the state. The initial determination of September, 1981, had been adjusted in November, 1981, moving the jurisdictional line further towards the receiving body of water which is known as Little Black Creek, a Class III water body. (Cyrilla racemil- flora) Two weeks before the hearing date in this cause, a project site inspection was made by Jeremy Guy Anthony Tyler, an employee wish the Department of Environmental Regulation. Tyler is the holder of a bachelor of science degree in mathematics, geology and physical geology and a masters degree in oceanography. His course study included chemistry and biology. He observed colonial upland species such as dog fennel and broom sage, together with some wetland species such as cypress seedlings, ash seedlings, button brush, cattails, willows, and Sagittaria, also known as arrowhead. Tyler indicated that the cattails and willows found on the site are typical invading wetland- type species. As Tyler described cattails and willows are plants that are seen at the start of a cycle of wet land development and would be expected to disappear as wetland species of trees became established. The wetland species were considerable in number. Dr. A Quentin White, Jr., Ph.D. in biology, gave testimony in behalf of the Petitioner and established that following clearing of the site, certain invader or colonial type species such as Phragmites and tipon, wetland species envisioned by the jurisdictional indicator list appeared. These colonial or invader species, as described by Dr. White, are probably located on the site in the positions observed because of off-site runoff into the site. Dr. White observed some cypress seedlings at the edge of the clearing adjacent to "'hat he describes as a swamp area, moving in the direction of Little Black Creek. These observations took place the day before the commencement of the hearing. White was uncertain of the jurisdictional limits of the Department of Environmental Regulation, expressing the opinion that the limit as established by the plant indices fell somewhere within the cleared area, which is the subject of this dispute, but did not extend as far as the current location of Hear Run Boulevard, based upon his perception of dominant vegetational species. Having considered the testimony and non-testimonial evidence, the facts demonstrate that the site of the proposed relocation of Bear Run Boulevard is within the dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Regulation. Respondents exhibit 8 is an aerial photograph depicting the site prior to the clearing. Respondent's exhibit 7 depicts the site following the clearing. A comparison of these two aerial photographs supports the determination that the relocation of Bear Run Boulevard falls within the permitting jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Regulation as established by plant indicators. This is further borne out by the testimony of the witness Tyler in describing the vegetational signature found on Respondent's exhibit 8. 1/ Mr. Coleman was present when the September, 1981, initial jurisdictional line and the refinement of that choice which moved the line in the direction of Little Black Creek, in November, 1981, were physically established. Coleman was instructed that any activity below that line in the direction of Black Creek would require permitting. Nonetheless, fill material was placed in the cleared area to include chunks of asphalt. This led to the entry of the cease and desist order of February 22, 1982, on the part of the United States Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's exhibit number 3 admitted into evidence. That material was subsequently removed and its removal was acknowledged in correspondence from the Corps of Engineers to Ralph Coleman dated October 5, 1982. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Respondent's exhibit number 4 admitted into evidence. Having constructed the present Bear Run Boulevard as it intersects with State Road 21, Coleman and Associates, Inc., determined to relocate the road and made application to the Department of Environmental Regulation for the issuance of a dredge and fill permit. A copy of that application may be found as Petitioner's exhibit number 4 admitted into evidence. The date of the application was December 22, 1982. The purpose of the relocation was to build a connection to State Road 21 which did not have as severe a curve as the 30 degree curve in the present configuration of Bear Run Boulevard. This initial application sought permission to fill an area of approximately .73 acres, and contemplated the placement of fill between the existing location of Bear Run Boulevard as it intersects with State Road 21 and the area where the road was to be relocated. The area of fill may be seen in crosshatch in a planview drawing, a copy of which is found as Petitioner's exhibit number 2, admitted into evidence. This request for relocation of Bear Run Boulevard was supported by John W. Bowles, Public Works Director, Clay County, Florida, as evidenced by correspondence to that effect, addressed to Ralph Coleman on December 28, 1982, a copy of which Petitioner's exhibit number 8 admitted into evidence. Following discussion with G.E. Carter, an employee of the Department of Environmental Regulation, the Petitioner, in the person of Ralph R. Coleman as president, offered revision to the application for the placement of fill as seen in the February 22, 1953, correspondence to that effect, a copy of which is Respondent's exhibit number 2 admitted into evidence. That exhibit erroneously depicts the amount of fill as being 3300 yards. As previously described, the fill was approximately .48 acres. In essence, the new project would only promote fill material in the area of the new roadway or relocated road. It does not contemplate the placement of fill between the new road and the existing Bear Run Boulevard. This amendment to the application is graphically depicted, in terms of the fill placement, through the drawing which is Petitioner's exhibit number 3 admitted into evidence. The crosshatch shows the fill material to be placed. This amendment also modified the project to the extent that a widening of Blending Boulevard by efforts of the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, caused the placement of fill in an area of the proposed relocation of Bear Run Boulevard, which was not the case in the initial application for permit of December 22, 1982. This circumstance is shown in Petitioner's exhibit number 3 and is otherwise described in the testimony of the witnesses. "what has occurred is that the Department of Transportation has filled an area of the proposed relocated road and the .48 acres constitutes the balance of the necessary fill. On February 25, 1983, G. F. Carter, as Environmental Specialist with the Department of Environmental Regulation, had written to Coleman and Associates, Inc., suggesting that the project, as proposed, and that is taken to mean the project as proposed on December 22, 1992, would have an adverse impact on the environment. The correspondence goes on to state that modification suggested by Carter could lessen the impact to the extent of possibly eliminating any justifiable reason for denying the permit. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's exhibit number 9 admitted into evidence. It is unclear exactly what Carter meant by this statement of how Petitioner could achieve permission to install the relocated road. However, it is evident that Coleman felt that the revisions of February 22, 1903, constituted the pursuit of changes which would lead to the issuance of a permit for dredge and fill. Whatever Carter's intentions, he could not bind the agency head of the Department of Environmental Regulation in the ultimate determination to grant or deny the permit as applied for in the revised plan of February 22, 1983. Ultimately, Respondent denied Petitioner's revised application for a dredge and fill permit based upon the belief that to grant permission to place fill materials as contemplated by the project, would cause a degradation of the water quality of state waters as envisioned by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. This led to the present formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes hearing as requested by the Petitioner. In the present circumstance in the cleared area where the relocated road would be built, a large amount of stormwater runoff is occurring, primarily from road surfaces and the parking lot adjacent to the Clay County Courthouse Annex. The road surfaces are constituted of the present Bear Run Boulevard and State Road 21. Within this runoff is a large quantity of sediment and some oil and gas and other debris that falls on the road surface. Part of that debris is in a dissolved state. This surface runoff is receiving very little pollution treatment in its passage over the area cleared by the Petitioner. Dr. White gave the opinion that should Bear Run Boulevard be relocated, a retention area would be created within the boundaries of the present Bear Run Boulevard, the relocation of Bear Run Boulevard and State Road 21, thus improving water quality by retaining some of the runoff for a short period of time within that triangular shaped retention area. At present Dr. White finds water quality degradation which is more pronounced than would be the case if Dear Run Boulevard was relocated and the retention area created as described. White contemplates a circumstance, in which, with the relocation of Bear Run Boulevard swales and grassy areas could be designed to retain much of the sediment and act as a filter in treating water coming off State Road 21 through a culvert before entering the well vegetated wetlands area adjacent to the clearing, as one moves in the direction of Little Black Creek. White believes that this sediment which is being discharged through the transport system will eventually creep over into the stand of wetland trees and smother those trees along the fringe of the more well vegetated area at the southern edge of the clearing. The swales and grassy areas are as distinguished from the retention area within the triangular shape piece of land to be boardered by the present road surfaces and the relocated Bear Run Boulevard. Dr. White found that the cleared area exchanges waters with Little Black Creek in the sense of a flow in the direction of Little Black Creek from the proposed project site, notwithstanding a finger of land which is higher in elevation between the site and Little Black Creek as may be seen in Petitioner's composite exhibit number 11, a topographical survey map depicting various elevations in the vicinity of the project. Dr. White noted the very eroded condition of the project site, especially in the area of discharge from State Road 21, on the southern end of the cleared area. The by-product of this erosion, as seen by Dr. White, is the movement of sediment into waters of the state having a detrimental effect on water quality, primarily through increased turbidity. With increased turbidity productivity of the plants species is reduced. In addition, animals which live in the water are adversely affected. This problem with erosion may also cause submerged aquatic vegetation to be covered over and disrupt the nesting habitats of animal species. Dr. White concedes that the placement of fill material, such as would be the circumstance with the construction of the relocated Bear Run Boulevard, in that immediate zone, would kill the wetlands species, thereby removing them as a source of filtration of pollutants in the effort to maintain water quality. Dr. White believes that with the continuation of heavy rains in storm events, the wetland vegetation which is native to the cleared area might be washed out. On the other hand, if the area was allowed to recover, and a reduction of water flow were to occur, removing the destructive quality of that flow, he would expect the reoccurrence of sweetgum, cypress, water tupolo, and other species which are found in hardwood swamp areas. (wetlands) Although Dr. White was struck by the amount of erosion and sedimentation associated with runoff through control devices for and on the road surface of State Road 21, at the southern end of the cleared area, he could not quantify what percentage of the problem of erosion was attributable to the State Road 21 circumstance, the parking lot of the Clay County Courthouse Annex and the existing Bear Run Boulevard. Dr. White believes that upland retention basin would be preferable to retention in the cleared area, but upland property is not within the ownership and control of the Petitioner for such purpose. Dr. White has the opinion that Little Black Creek would only flood the cleared area in question in times of extremely high water. The observations by Dr. White are accepted as accurate. George Register, III, consultant to the Petitioner, has observed the site and gave his testimony. Register is the holder of a bachelors degree in biology and a masters degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering. He noted two flumes which discharge water from the Bear Run Boulevard, in times of storm events, going directly into the cleared area. He feels that a retention area on site can offer water treatment for the rainfall which is directly on the property and flowing through the property. Register also observed the situation related to State Road 21, particularly the road drainage system associated with the widening of State Road 21 from a two-lane to a four-lane road. Register would expand the idea of Dr. White concerning swales and grassing on the site to deal with the discharge from State Road 21, because he does not feel that the problem associated with the discharge can be completely alleviated on the site. He would use the more vegetated wetland area south of the cleared area to treat the runoff from State Road 21, by the settling of suspended particles in the runoff and the slowing down of the flow through the vegetated area using dikes and weirs and other control structures before the final discharge into Little Black Creek. (All of the activities associated with State Road 21, as to construction and drainage, are the responsibility of the State of Florida, Department of Transportation.) Register, as did White, noted that the present circumstance, given the amount of water being discharged onto the site, is not one which affords meaningful water treatment on the site. Register also observed the mix of wetlands and upland vegetation in the cleared area. He noted that exchange of water in the direction from Little Black Creek to the cleared area would only occur in times of extreme flooding, which has not occurred during the years in which he has had knowledge of this site. Register was not able to attribute the amount of runoff associated with the Clay County Courthouse Annex, Bear Run Boulevard, and State Road 21, in terms of percentages of contribution in a rainfall event, but was impressed by the volume from State Road 21. He does not find the present sparse wetlands vegetation, the colonial or volunteer species found at the site, to be of much value in water treatment. In order to afford meaningful treatment, Register thinks that the stand must be very healthy and diverse, as would commonly occur on the site, before it may offer a meaningful assistance in stormwater treatment. To improve the situation on the site, he would create the retention area with berming and weirs and other control structures and plant select kinds of vegetation to help in water treatment. Given the present circumstance, he would expect that in the area of the State Road 21 discharge pipe some form of wetlands vegetation such as cattails or pickleweed would persist as a "little band" of material. The rest of the area he expects to come back predominately as upland vegetation given the current trend, particularly as eroded material continues to be deposited on the site. The use of erosion control mats and the planting of certain types of vegetation to slow dawn the erosion, would not be sufficient to reverse the trend of the introduction of upland vegetation in the cleared area. Register's observations are accepted as accurate. The detail envisioned in the construction of the retention area, the Placement of swales and grassing, as described by White and Register, cannot be found in the original or amended application of the Petitioner. Nonetheless, Petitioner expressed a willingness to employ those techniques suggested by his consultants, Register and White, if given permission to construct the relocated Bear Run Boulevard. Petitioner's exhibits 18, 19, 20, 23, and 24, which are photographs admitted into evidence, depicts the impact of the expansion of State Road 21, in terms of sedimentation and erosion on site and in the more well vegetated wetlands area south of the site or cleared area. Some of those photographs show the types of vegetation as described by the various witnesses who gave testimony. The photograph attached to Petitioner's exhibit number 10 shows standing water in the cleared area, which is a frequent occurrence. The soil in the cleared area has remained wet following the clearing. The witness Tyler, who is a supervisor of the dredge and fill section of the northeast district office of the Department of Environmental Regulation, gave his impressions of the project. Tyler looks upon the creation of the area between existing Bear Run Boulevard, the proposed Dear Run Boulevard, and State Route 21 as an act of taking that area constituted of a triangular shaped piece of land out of the system in terms of water quality maintenance. He does not perceive this modification of the original application to exclude the placement of fill within that triangular shaped parcel as being an improvement to the original design. He overlooks the value of retention of water within the parcel as having a role in terms of water treatment and protection of the more dense wetlands area south of the site and Little Black Creek and the relatively ineffectual situation that now exists in the way of water treatment. That southerly dense area has been seen by Tyler to contain a number of cypress, tupelo, sweetgum and maple trees. Tyler feels that the effect of the project would be to eliminate the cleansing effect of the treatment on-site on the occasions where Little Black Creek overflows it is banks in the direction of the proposed construction site. This, as established through the testimony of White and Register, is an infrequent event. In summary, Tyler overlooked the potential of change, especially with attendant features which could be placed in the triangular shaped retention area and the contribution of placement of swales and grassing add. Although this causes detrimental impact on the site, changes would tend to improve water quality in the more pristine area south of the site, by tending to improve the filtering capacity of the clear area, which at present has little value in that role. Timothy Deuerling is an Environmental Specialist with the Department of Environmental Regulation. He holds a bachelors degree in Science and has taken course work in biology, zoology, and botany. In his visits to the site in the cleared area Duereling has observed cattails, brushes, willows, cypress and ash. He believes that the relocation of Bear Run Boulevard would adversely affect the water quality of Little Black Creek in the instance of placement of a fill in a wetland area, thus eliminating vegetation and soil which could filter and dissimulate pollutants and nutrients in the water. He feels that on the occasion of a reverse flow of water, from the creek to the site, as opposed to the site to the creek, placement of a roadbed would tend to take away the ability of that vegetation which has been covered over by the roadbed to remove pollutants and excess nutrients from the waters of Little Black Creek. By such action of building the road, he feels that the cumulative impact is to cause a violation of water quality, in that at some point in time the accumulation of projects will be such that the system will go out of balance and stay out of balance in terms of water quality. Deuerling believes that the general area of the project is a prime location for such projects. Even though Deuerling concedes that a retention area on site would clean up the water, he does not feel that is an acceptable alternative, given the fact that this area of retention is within the landward extent of Little Black Creek. The effect of the placement of retention area on site is to pollute waters which are already those which are the responsibility of the state, according to Deuerling. Deuerling would vie for upland retention. Deuerling's opinions are not accepted, given the fact that the present site offers little or no filtering capacity. The construction of the relocated Bear Run Boulevard with attendant features envisioned by Dr. White and Mr. Register would improve the filtering capacity, and enhance the overall system at the expense of an element of the system which, at present, offers little or no benefit and whose prospects are not such that those beneficial features will improve in the future if left in the present state. Uplands are not available for the placement of retention areas, and that suggestion, while more desirable, is not viable in this circumstance. Finally, while cumulative impact, as associated with intentional discharge into waters of the state, is a matter for consideration, the present case is not one which presents that form of discharge. The State of Florida, Department of Transportation, in widening State Road 21 from a two lane to a four lane road, in the vicinity of the Petitioner's project, placed approximately ten acres of fill in the landward extent of waters of the state. This was in furtherance of the application for a dredge and fill permit filed with the Respondent, a copy of that application being found as' Petitioner's exhibit number 5. A Copy of the permit may be found as Petitioner's exhibit number 6 admitted into evidence, dating from April 29, 1983. The Department of Transportation was also allowed to remove 1778 cubic yards of fill material. The permit set forth general and specific conditions to include revegetation, turbidity control, turbidity monitoring, erosion control, immediate stabilization of filled areas, and efforts at minimizing the wetlands disruption. In carrying out its function, approximately .096 acres of land which was contemplated for filling in the original Coleman application was filled by the Department of Transportation. No filling was done by the Department of Transportation in the area contemplated by the revised application offered by the Petitioner. The Department of Transportation did fill an area which intersects with State Road 21 and will serve as part of the roadbed for the relocated Bear Run Boulevard. The cleared area, and specifically the site where the fill material would be placed in the construction and relocation of Bear Run Boulevard, is within Class III waters of the state, as described in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code and subject to water quality standards pertaining to that classification. With the advent of this construction, given the limited value of the filtering capacity of the present site and the changes that can be promoted by the replacement of a retention area and associated features, while it might be expected to influence water quality standards at issue within the area of the placement of the fill material and within the retention basin, it would promote an improvement in the condition of the water quality in the flood plain which is immediately south of the cleared site and ultimately improve the condition of Little Black Creek. This finding relates to those water quality standards dealing with biochemical oxygen demand, nutrients, turbidity, biological integrity, and dissolved oxygen. The State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, has granted authority to pursue the project as envisioned by Section 253.77, Florida Statutes, and confirmed by correspondence of Henry Dean, Interim Director, Division of Land Sales, dated January 28, 1983. A copy of this confirmation may be found as Petitioner's exhibit number 7 admitted into evidence. The United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and United States Environmental Protection Agency made known their comments on the project through correspondence, copies of which may be found as Respondent's composite exhibit number 9 admitted into evidence.
The Issue The issues are whether David Boston should be issued an environmental resource permit and sovereign submerged lands authorization allowing him to construct 96 linear feet of rip rap revetment; construct a private dock of less than 1,000 square feet; and place 3,500 square feet of fill in non-jurisdictional areas; and whether he qualifies for a general permit to place a fill pad in isolated wetlands adjacent to the St. Johns River, a Class III waterbody.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this permitting dispute between neighbors, Petitioner, Vincent R. D'Antoni, Jr., contends generally that Respondent, David Boston (Boston), will cause flooding to Petitioner's property by reason of placing too much fill on an isolated wetland, which lies in the center of Boston's property. The filling is in conjunction with Boston's efforts to construct a single-family residence and private dock on his property, purchased in June 1998, which lies adjacent to the St. Johns River, a Class III waterbody, in Duval County, Florida. In preliminary decisions made on November 5, 1998, and January 21, 1999, Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), "acknowledge[d] receipt" of Boston's intent to use a noticed general permit "to fill less than 4,000 square feet of an isolated wetland to facilitate construction of a single family home" on his lot (Case No. 99-2861), and gave notice of its intent to issue Boston an environmental resource permit and sovereign submerged lands authorization allowing him to construct a rip rap revetment and a dock and to place 3,500 square feet of fill in mainly non-jurisdictional areas (Case No. 99-1916). Although a number of objections were raised by Petitioner in his original filings, as clarified at the final hearing, Petitioner now contends that Boston placed excessive fill on his lot, including an isolated wetland, and that the fill has resulted in flooding, saturated soil, or standing water on Petitioner's property. He also contends that the location of Boston's proposed dock will affect the ability to use his own dock. Because no evidence was presented on the docking issue, and through admissions Petitioner acknowledged that there will be no adverse environmental impacts, no consideration will be given to those objections. Finally, Petitioner does not object to the placement of the rip rap revetment on the shoreline. Accordingly, the request for an environmental resource permit and consent to use sovereign submerged lands in Case No. 99-1916 should be approved. The property in issue lies just south of the Jacksonville University Country Club and a few blocks west of University Boulevard North on Wayland Street, which fronts the eastern side of the St. Johns River in a tract of land known as University Park. Except for the Boston lot, all other waterfront lots are now developed. When facing the river from Wayland Street, Petitioner's lot lies to the right of Boston's lot, while another lot owned by Robert Henderson (Henderson) lies to the left of Boston's lot. The lots are up to 500 feet deep; Boston's lot is around 96 feet wide, while Petitioner's lot has a similar width but narrows to only 20 feet or so near the river. At the river end of the D'Antoni, Boston, and Henderson lots is an area of contiguous wetlands. Until 1995, DEP regulated those wetland areas and this prevented D'Antoni and Henderson from placing any fill in those areas. Under DEP's current wetland delineation rule, however, such areas are non- jurisdictional, and any placement of fill at the river end is outside the purview of DEP's jurisdiction. Before Boston's lot was cleared and filled, it was about a foot lower in elevation than the D'Antoni lot; this was true even though Petitioner has never changed the natural grade of his property since it was purchased and developed. Therefore, water tended to flow naturally from an upland area north or east of the D'Antoni lot, through the D'Antoni lot to Boston's lot, and then through the lower part of the Henderson lot populated by "very mature cypress trees," and eventually into the St. Johns River. According to a 1977 aerial photograph, the Boston lot contained what appears to be a tidal connection from an uplands area through the wetlands on his property to the river. However, construction on property adjacent to the Henderson lot sometime after 1977 severed this connection, and a tidal connection (direct hydrologic connection) to the river no longer exists. Under Rule 62-341.475(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, "a single family residence" is exempt from the Environmental Resource Program permitting and a general permit will be granted "as long as it is not part of a larger plan of common development," and "the total area of dredging or filling in isolated wetlands for the residence and associated residential improvement shall not exceed 4000 square feet." Since there is no longer a direct hydrologic connection between the wetlands on Boston's property and the St. Johns River, the wetlands are isolated within the meaning of this rule. Availing himself of the foregoing provision, on October 19, 1998, Boston gave notice to DEP "of [his] intent to use a noticed general permit to fill less than 4,000 square feet of an isolated wetland" on his property. He also provided certain drawings and other information (prepared by his surveyor) to show that he qualified for the permit. DEP does not "issue" a noticed general permit; rather, it only determines whether the applicant qualifies for a permit and then "acknowledges" this fact. Accordingly, on November 5, 1998, DEP "acknowledge[d] receipt" of Boston's notice. Although DEP encourages the user of such a permit to notify affected or adjoining property owners, there was no legal requirement that Boston do so, and he proceeded to clear the lot and then fill a part of the wetland area with two or three feet of dirt without giving notice to Petitioner or Henderson, his two neighbors. The filling raised the elevation of the Boston property at least two feet above the D'Antoni and Henderson lots and impeded the prior natural flow of water. At the same time, Boston constructed a three to four-foot timber wall (consisting of railroad ties) on the Henderson property line to retain the fill and a similar two-foot wall on Petitioner's line. These changes had the effect of impounding the water which had previously flowed naturally in a north-south direction through the wetlands from the D'Antoni lot to the Boston lot to the Henderson lot. It also generated runoff from the Boston lot to the D'Antoni lot, which had not previously occurred. When Petitioner observed the adjacent lot being cleared and filled, and the resulting erosion of fill onto his property, pooling of water, and damage to his chain link fence after a heavy rain in January 1999, he filed a complaint with DEP. An inspection was made by DEP, and Boston was told to stop work until corrective changes were made to ensure that such flooding would not occur. After a series of changes were made which satisfied DEP's concerns, the stop work order was lifted. Boston also signed a consent order and paid a $100.00 fine. However, pending the outcome of these cases, no further construction work has occurred. Petitioner has contended that Boston has placed more than 7,200 square feet of fill on his property in violation of the rule, which limits the amount of fill to less than 4,000 square feet. While this amount of filling has in fact occurred, approximately 3,500 square feet of fill was placed in non- jurisdictional areas between the shoreline and the isolated wetlands, and the rule only requires that Boston limit his fill to less than 4,000 square feet on the isolated wetland. Thus, contrary to a suggestion by Petitioner's engineer, the jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional filling are not totaled together to determine whether the threshold within the rule has been exceeded. Through photographs received in evidence and testimony by Petitioner and his wife, it was established that flooding or standing water has occurred on Petitioner's property during heavy rainfalls since the filling occurred, even as recently as January 2000. The evidence further shows that Petitioner's chain link fence has been damaged through the weight of the fill pressing against the fence. In addition, Petitioner has suffered the loss of "a couple of trees" because of "mucky" and "oversaturated" soil caused by excessive water. Also, a dog house on a raised platform in the back yard which was previously dry now "stays in water." These affected areas lie immediately adjacent to the filled area of the isolated wetland on Boston's property. Finally, there is an erosion problem beyond the isolated wetland consisting of sand and silt flowing from Boston's lot onto Petitioner's lot during heavy rainfalls. Despite these problems, Petitioner does not object to the development of the lot; he only asks that Boston do so in a manner which prevents these conditions from recurring in the future. Petitioner's engineering expert, Ronnie D. Perron (Perron), a professional engineer who visited the site in August 1999, ran a computer model (Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing, Version 2.11) showing runoff both before and after the fill was placed on Boston's lot. He concluded that "there was over one and a half feet of flooding in that wetlands due to filling Mr. Boston's lot" during a "mean annual storm event," which assumes five inches of rain during a 24-hour period. Even when he used more conservative estimates, Perron still arrived at water accumulations ranging from 0.6 feet to 1.5 feet. This excessive runoff is caused by the retaining wall and fill, which "blocks off" the water and causes it to "spread out in [Petitioner's] whole back yard." In response to Perron's model, a DEP professional engineer, David P. Apple (Apple), ran another computer model (PONDS, Version 2.25) received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit No. 14. That model shows that during a three-year, one- hour storm event, the small depressed area on Boston's property (including the isolated wetland) had sufficient storage capacity to absorb up to six inches of runoff from off-site areas and not overflow back onto Petitioner's property. This size of storm event (which produces two and one-half inches of rain in an hour) is typically used by the Department in calculations for single- family residential property when the impervious area site is less than fifty percent. In this case, Apple didn't "feel that the impervious area out there was greater than [fifty] percent." Therefore, Apple concluded that the storm event used by Perron was too large, and that the smaller event used in his model was more appropriate. He also concluded that the Boston property could retain all water in a normal storm event without discharging any stormwater onto the D'Antoni lot. He did not, however, address the issue of the fill and retaining wall on the Boston lot impounding the water on his neighbor's lot. In developing the input perameters for his model, Apple assumed that water falling at the front (Wayward Street) side of the D'Antoni property drained to the front roadway; in fact, much of that water drains to the rear of the lot into the wetland area. A similar incorrect assumption was made regarding runoff on the Boston lot. If modifications were made to account for the proper drainage patterns, the Apple model would show larger amounts of water staging on the Boston property during rainfall events, which would increase the possibility of runoff onto the D'Antoni lot. Apple questioned the accuracy of the Perron model given the fact that Perron had used a larger storm event than he (Apple) believed was appropriate. However, even if Perron had used a three-year, one-hour storm event on his computer model, as advocated by Apple, he established that it would have resulted in flood staging on Petitioner's property between 0.97 and 1.64 feet during a smaller storm event. DEP proposed no solutions to the water problems on the D'Antoni lot, presumably because it concluded that the rule was satisfied; that by filling the Boston lot, it was no longer the "stormwater pond for the neighborhood runoff"; and that DEP had no other regulatory authority to solve this peculiar situation. The record shows clearly, however, that if no changes are made, water will continue to back up on Petitioner's property by virtue of the higher elevation on the Boston lot, and the possibility of runoff from Boston's lot exists during certain storm events. Neither condition existed before the fill was added. To correct the foregoing conditions, Perron proposes two corrective measures. First, Boston should install a yard drain (underground culvert) beginning in the wetlands area of his property and outfalling to the cypress trees on the adjacent Henderson lot. Besides providing an outfall for the excess water, this would also help recharge the mature cypress trees on the Henderson lot. Second, D'Antoni should install a series of "yard drains" using high-density polyethylene pipes to convey the standing water on his lot directly into the St. Johns River. The expert opined that neither activity would require a permit from DEP. These modifications are reasonable and appropriate and should be used by the factioning parties. Accordingly, the installation of a yard drain should be a condition for Boston to use his noticed general permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the application for a permit and consent in Case No. 99-1916 and confirming that David Boston qualifies for use of a noticed general permit in Case No. 99-2861 provided, however, that such use be conditioned on Boston constructing an underground culvert with a yard drain from the wetland area on his lot to the St. Johns River. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Vincent R. D'Antoni, Jr. 3824 Wayland Street Jacksonville, Florida 32277 David Boston 2262 Orchard Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issues are (1) whether Respondents, Frank H. and Linda M. Molica, dredged and filled wetlands on their property in Merritt Island, Brevard County (County), Florida, without a permit and should take certain corrective actions, and (2) whether Respondents' activities are exempt from permitting under Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In 1990, Respondents purchased a 3.47-acre, rectangular- shaped parcel at 2050 North Tropical Trail, Merritt Island, Florida, which is located within the regulatory jurisdiction of the District. See § 373.069, Fla. Stat. The parcel identification number is 24-36-15-00-00764-00000.00. The property is less than a mile south of State Road 528 (A1A), approximately one-half mile west of State Road 3 (North Courtney Parkway), and around one-half mile east of the Indian River. The property is bounded on its western side by a roadway known as North Tropical Trail, on the south side by a drainage ditch, and on the east side by another drainage ditch. Further to the east of the drainage ditch on the eastern side of the property are a holding pond and a subdivision known as Copperfield Subdivision developed in 1993, while a nursery is located just south of the drainage ditch on the southern side. The northern boundary of the parcel is five hundred twenty feet long and is adjoined by a vacant parcel of land similar in size to the Molica parcel and which is owned by the Lacanos. The Lacano property is largely a wetland. To the north of the Lacano property is a parcel owned by the Stricklands. Historically, the natural flow of water in the area was north to south, that is, from the Stricklands to the Lacanos to the Molica's property, and then to the drainage ditch on the south side of the Molica's property. When Respondents purchased the property in 1990, citrus trees were located "mostly in the front half," or western side of the property, "but they were also located in the rear scattered throughout." There was also "weed grass" or "mini grass" throughout the entire parcel. In 2002 or 2003, the citrus industry was economically hurt by a drop in prices due to various problems, and it became difficult to find fruit pickers or purchasers for the fruit. Because of these conditions, and pursuant to a recommendation by another citrus grower, Respondents state that they began to "transform their property to palm tree production." In late 2003, Respondents began removing orange trees and clearing the land; this continued throughout 2004. At the same time, they began to remove vegetation from the eastern half of the property, which included the excavation of the vegetation, soil, and roots. This was accomplished by the use of heavy equipment, including a tracked cab with hoe, a bobcat with front end loader bucket and root rake, and a wheeled tractor with front end root rake. This is confirmed by photographs taken of the property in April and December 2004. See District Exhibits 8 through 10. Also, a few cabbage palms were removed that were damaged during the clearing process, as well as trees damaged by hurricanes that struck the east coast of Florida in 2004. The vegetation and soil were trucked off-site for disposal, and new soil or fill was placed throughout the eastern half of the property in which vegetation and soil had been excavated. In some cases, the fill measured as high as thirty-three inches but averaged around one foot in height. There is no dispute that dredging (or excavation) and filling on the property occurred. Respondents did not obtain an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) before performing this work. On December 13, 2004, the County received a complaint (generated by Mrs. Strickland, the neighbor to the north) about "heavy machinery operating in a wetland" on the Molica property. Mr. Pinnick, who was charged with enforcement of County environmental ordinances, visited the subject property to determine whether a violation of an ordinance had occurred. He observed heavy machinery operating on the central and eastern sides of the property and took several photographs of the site. See District Exhibit 12. He also observed vegetation and muck soil in the disturbed area and standing water in the ditch to the south and concluded that wetlands were being impacted. It is fair to infer that he then notified the DEP about the incident. On December 15, 2004, Mr. Pinnick, accompanied by two DEP employees, Mr. West and his supervisor, Ms. Booker, visited the site and met Mr. Molica and his consultant. At that time, "clearing and [dredging and filling] of wetland at rear [or east end] of Molica's property [was observed]." See District Exhibit 49. The DEP requested that Respondents' consultant "flag a [wetland] line and then Molica have all fill within wetland area removed." The DEP also advised Mr. Molica that "[a]rea then needs to be restored to natural grade." Id. Notes taken by Mr. Pinnick confirm that Mr. Molica agreed to remove the fill "to restore the natural grade and the wetland boundary would be delineated [by Mr. Molica's consultant.]" See District Exhibit The conclusion of both the County and DEP was that wetlands were present in the central part of the property. No formal delineation of wetlands was performed by them since the parties reached an understanding that Mr. Molica's consultant would perform this task. Because Mr. Molica thereafter denied access to the property, this would be the last time regulatory personnel were able to make an on-site inspection of the property until October 2008, when the District obtained an Order authorizing them to inspect the property. The County later charged Respondents with violating the County Code ("prohibitions in functional wetlands"), and the matter was considered by a Special Magistrate. An Order of Dismissal was entered by the Special Magistrate on February 1, 2006, on the grounds the property was zoned agriculture and enjoyed an agricultural exemption, and Respondents agreed to use Best Management Practices, as prescribed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs. See Respondents' Exhibit 4. However, neither the DEP nor the District was involved in that action, and the matter concerned an alleged violation of a local ordinance, and not a provision in Chapters 373 or 403, Florida Statutes. At some point in time, but presumably after the site visit in December 2004, Mr. Molica asserted to the DEP that he was conducting an agricultural operation. In early 2005, the DEP referred the matter to the District since the two agencies have an operating agreement concerning which agency will handle certain types of permitting and enforcement matters. By letter dated August 15, 2005, Mr. Molica advised the local District office in Palm Bay, Florida, that the owners of the property were engaging in agricultural activities and denied that any unauthorized fill and excavation activities had occurred. He also requested copies of any statutes, rules, or case law that supported the District's position. See Respondents' Exhibit 2A. On August 3, 2007, the District advised Mr. Molica by letter that it had received a complaint from DEP, that the matter had not yet been resolved, and that it wished to inspect his property to determine if unauthorized fill and excavation activities had occurred. See Respondents' Exhibit 2B. According to a District witness, the delay in responding to Mr. Molica's letter was caused by the building boom occurring in 2005 and 2006, which required action on numerous pending permits, and in-house confusion over whether the DEP or District had jurisdiction to handle the complaint. There is no evidence to suggest that at any time the District agreed that the activities were lawful, or that the delay in responding to Mr. Molica's letter prejudiced Respondents in any manner. After conducting a preliminary investigation, which included a review of aerial photographs of the area, wetland maps, and soil maps, a visual inspection taken from the Copperfield Subdivision to the east and North Tropical Trail from the west, and a flyover of the property, the District issued its Complaint on August 8, 2008. Are there wetlands on the property? To determine whether wetlands were present on the Molica property, the District made a site inspection on October 22, 28, 29, and 30, 2008. Besides making a visual inspection of the property, the staff took photographs, performed twenty-nine soil borings on both the Molica and Lacano properties, reviewed soil surveys for the area, completed one west-to-east transect and five north-to-south transects to determine locations of hydric soils and any fill materials, and observed lichen and water stain lines on trees. The locations of the various soil borings are depicted on District Exhibit 22. Finally, the staff examined a series of aerial photographs of the property. Under the wetland delineation rule, three different indicators are used to make that determination: vegetation; soils; and signs of hydrology. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 340.300(2)(a)-(d). In addition, where the vegetation and soil have been altered by man-induced factors so that the boundary between the uplands and wetlands cannot be delineated by use of Rule 62-340.300(2), such a determination shall be made by using the most reliable information and "reasonable scientific judgment." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-340.300(3)(a). The parties presented conflicting evidence on the wetland issue; the District's evidence has been accepted as being the more persuasive and credible and supports a finding that the areas where dredging and filling occurred in the eastern and central parts of the property meet the test for a wetland. Wetland Soils Muck presence is a hydric soil indicator and also a wetland indicator. The District's expert, Mr. Richardson, established that the soil on the property where the dredging and filling occurred was hydric in nature, and therefore indicative of a wetland. Although Respondent's soil expert disagreed with this conclusion, he generally agreed with Mr. Richardson's methodology, and he agreed that muck was present below the fill material. Wetland Vegetation The presence or absence of wetland vegetation is another factor to consider in deciding whether an area is or was a wetland. Wetland hardwood trees, and not grass planted on top of the fill, are more appropriate for evaluating whether the area in which the trees are located was a wetland. Large trees, estimated to be fifty to sixty years old, remain on the property in the vicinity of certain District soil borings. They include boring 20 (swamp tupelo); borings 3, 4, and 5 (red maple, American elm, and holly); and borings 9 and 10 (maple and American elm). These are all wetland canopy species and provide further support for the District's position. Hydrologic Indicators Algal matting is found on the surface of the property in the vicinity of borings 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9. Algal matting occurs because water has inundated the surface of the ground sufficiently long for algae to grow in the water and then remains on the ground surface after the water no longer covers the ground. Rainfall alone does not produce algal mats. Trees on the property provided evidence of being in saturated or inundated soil conditions through the morphological adaptation of buttressing and adventitious roots, particularly in the vicinity of District borings 20, 8, 9, and 10. Also, the trees had lichen lines on them, which are indicators of seasonal high water inundation elevations in wetlands. The presence of muck soils is a hydrologic indicator. As noted above, the District determined through soil borings that muck was under the fill that had been placed on the property. Reasonable Scientific Judgment The evidence established that there was significant alteration to the soils and vegetation across the central and eastern parts of the subject property due to man-induced factors of vegetation removal, dredging, and filling. Through consideration of the most reliable information available, including aerial photographs, the remaining trees on the site, hydrologic indicators, the presence of hydric soils, coupled with reasonable scientific judgment, the evidence established that the areas where the recent dredging and filling occurred met the wetland delineation test in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 340.300(3). Agricultural Exemption Mr. Molica is a full-time practicing attorney. His wife is his legal secretary. Respondents contend that since they purchased the property in 1990, they have been continuously engaged first in the occupation of citrus farming, and then beginning sometime in 2004 in the production of palm trees. Therefore, they assert they are entitled to the exemption provided under Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes. That provision states in relevant part that "[n]othing herein . . . shall be construed to affect the right of any person engaged in the occupation of . . . horticulture . . . to alter the topography of any tract of land consistent with the practice of such occupation. However, such alteration may not be for the sole or predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters." The parties agree that the burden of proving entitlement to this exemption rests on Respondents. When the property was purchased in 1990, there were citrus trees on the land, mainly in the western half. A few navel oranges were later added, and some citrus trees were removed at that time. Beginning at the end of 2003, and continuing in 2004, the citrus trees were removed. At the time of the DEP inspection in December 2004, no potted palm trees were observed on the property. The precise date when they were first placed on the property is not clear. Photographs taken in January 2006, more than a year after the dredging and filling and just before the County code violation charge was resolved, reflect around fifty or so small trees in pots located in a small, cleared section of the property. See Respondents' Exhibit Photographs taken three years later (January 2009), long after the dredging and filling occurred, show a comparable number of small palm trees in pots placed on what appears to be the same part of the property. See Respondents' Exhibit 21. Mr. Molica also submitted numerous documents (dated 2005 and later) downloaded from the internet by his wife which pertain to palm trees, see Respondents' Exhibit 20; and he stated that a marketing plan for the sale of palm trees has been developed, which was simply a goal of selling the trees after they were ten years old. He further stated that he intends to work the "farm" as a business full-time after retiring from his law practice. Finally, he presented the testimony of an agronomist who stated that clearing property, filling holes, smoothing land, and building an access road are normal agriculture activities. It is fair to infer from the record that Respondents' activities can be characterized as an avocation, not an occupation. Notably, there is no evidence that since they purchased the property in 1990, Respondents have sold any citrus fruit or a single palm tree. There is no evidence that dredging and filling in wetlands is a normal agriculture practice, or that it is consistent with the practice of horticulture, including the growing of exotic palm trees. Mr. Molica's agronomist acknowledged that he has never been associated with an application to conduct agricultural or horticultural activities that involve the filling of wetlands. Moreover, extensive dredging, filling, and removal of vegetation were not necessary to accommodate the small area on which the potted plants sit. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the topographic alterations on the property are not consistent with the practice of agriculture. The evidence shows that the filling on the property has obstructed the natural flow of surface water. More than likely, the filling of the wetlands was for the predominant purpose of obstructing and diverting surface water that flowed south from the Lacano property, and not for the purpose of enhancing horticultural productivity. Corrective Actions At hearing, the District submitted certain revisions to the proposed corrective action, which are described in District Exhibit 73. The revisions provide greater specificity regarding the formulation of a restoration plan and who must be involved in formulating that plan. In general terms, the corrective action offers Respondents the option of seeking an after-the-fact permit or restoring the wetlands. Respondents offered no proof at hearing that the original or revised corrective action is unreasonable. The revised corrective action is found to be reasonable and designed to address the restoration needs of the property and is hereby approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered sustaining the charges in the Complaint, requiring Respondents to take the corrective actions described in District Exhibit 73, and determining that Respondents are not entitled to an agricultural exemption under Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2009.
The Issue The issues in this case are: Whether Petitioner, Warren M. Briggs ("Briggs"), should be issued a Wetland Resource Permit (WRP) for the construction of a single-family dwelling on a lot with jurisdictional wetlands in Santa Rosa County, Florida, as proposed in his application submission of 1998; and Whether the Department would permit the construction of a single-family dwelling on the subject lot under conditions and circumstances other than those set forth in Briggs' application.
Findings Of Fact Briggs is the owner of Lot 67, Block H, Paradise Bay Subdivision, located in southern Santa Rosa County ("Briggs lot"). Paradise Bay Subdivision was developed in approximately 1980, prior to the passage in 1984 of the Warren Henderson Wetland Protection Act. (Official Recognition of Section 403.918, Florida Statutes). The subdivision consists of modestly priced single- family homes that are attractive to young families because of the quality of nearby schools. The typical non-waterfront home in the subdivision is single story, approximately 2,000 square feet in area, and built on a concrete slab. The typical setback from the road to the front edge of a home is 75 feet. This fairly consistent setback from the road prevents the view from one home into the adjacent property owner’s back yard and, thereby, adversely affecting the neighbor’s property value. The undeveloped Briggs lot was purchased in 1981 for approximately $15,000 and remains undeveloped. Briggs bought the lot, along with three other lots in the subdivision, as investment property. The other three lots have been sold. One of the lots sold earlier by Briggs was a waterfront lot on East Bay located in jurisdictional wetlands. The entire lot was filled pursuant to a permit issued by the Department. The Briggs lot is 90 feet wide by 200 feet deep. It is located on the south side of Paradise Bay Drive. The lots on the north side of Paradise Bay Drive are waterfront lots on East Bay. To the rear (south) of the Briggs lot and other lots on the south side of Paradise Bay Drive, is a large swamp that eventually discharges into East Bay. The major connection between the Briggs lot and East Bay is through a culvert under Paradise Bay Drive. The Briggs’ lot consists of 2,914 square feet of uplands and 15,086 square feet of state jurisdictional wetland, with all of the uplands located in the northern half of the lot. Converted to acres, the Briggs lot consists of 0.067 acres of uplands and 0.347 acres of state jurisdictional wetland. Lot 66, immediately east of the Briggs lot, has been cleared and is about half tietie swamp with the remainder consisting of uplands and disturbed wetlands. Some fill has been placed on the lot. Lot 68, immediately west of the Briggs lot, is undeveloped and consists of all tietie wetlands. Lots 69, 70 and 71 of Block H of the subdivision are undeveloped and consist primarily of wetlands. The Department issued a permit on October 31, 1996, that allowed the owners of Lot 71 to fill 0.22 acres (9,570 square feet) of wetlands. The fill is allowed to a lot depth of 145 feet on the west side, and to a width of 73 feet of the total lot width of 90 feet. The fill area is bordered on the east and west by wetland areas not to be filled. The Department issued a permit on November 13, 1997, that allowed the owner of Lot 61 to fill 0.26 acres (11,310 square feet) of wetlands. Fill is allowed over the entire northern 125 feet of the 185 foot-deep lot. On April 28, 1998, Briggs applied to the Department for a permit to fill Lot 67. The Department, in its letter of August 7, 1998, and its permit denial of September 2, 1998, erroneously described the project as consisting of 0.47 acres of fill. The entire lot consists of only 0.41 acres, of which 0.067 acres is uplands, leaving a maximum area of fill of 0.343 acres. If Briggs’ residential lot is to be used, some impact to the wetlands on the lot is unavoidable. Alternatives discussed by Briggs and the Department, three of which are still available for Briggs to accept, included the following: One hundred feet of fill with a bulkhead separating the fill from the wetland area, with no off-site mitigation; Fill pad could be placed on property with the remainder of the wetlands on the site to remain in their natural state with no backyard, with no off-site mitigation required; One hundred feet of fill with a bulkhead separating the fill material from the wetland, with a small back yard, with no off-site mitigation required. Briggs did not accept any of the foregoing alternatives or proposed acceptable mitigation measures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the permit application, provided that the parties may reach subsequent agreement regarding proper mitigation in order to make the construction of a single-family dwelling possible on the Petitioner’s property in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Collette, Esquire Lucinda R. Roberts, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Jesse W. Rigby, Esquire Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry Bond and Stackhouse 125 West Romana Street, Suite 800 Post Office Box 13010 Pensacola, Florida 32591-3010 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact On September 13, 1977, SFWMD advised Coquina by letter that "[a]t its September 8, 1977 meeting the Governing Board of this District gave Conceptual Approval of [Coquina's] surface water management plan . . . subject to the four special conditions found on page 15 of the District's staff report. . . [and an] additional special condition Joint exhibit No. 5. The first special condition found on page 15 of the District's staff report requires that complete construction plans be submitted, including "supporting calculations for all design elements not already submitted and any other plans necessary to assure adherence to the concept plan." Joint exhibit No. 2, page 15. The plan approved by SFWMD is designed to lower the water table in a 22 square mile area northwest of Lake Okeechobee in Okeechobee County. In its natural state, the land lies under water for part of the year. The corporate owner of the land has plans to subdivide it and sell residential lots, beginning with the four contiguous sections as to which the present application for a construction permit has been made. These four sections (phase I) lie north and south of each other in the western portion of the larger tract. The proposed construction would consist of digging ditches or swales paralleling existing and planned roads; building intersecting collector swales running north and south; installing ditch checks where swales intersect; dredging a retention pond into which the collector swales could empty at the south end of the phase I tract; digging an outfill ditch to channel water leaving the retention area for Ash Slough; and erecting a weir, between the retention area and the slough. Culverts through the weir would be equipped "with standard flash board risers in which the water level is regulated by stop logs which can be added or removed," Coquina's exhibit No. 1, p. 10, and the culverts would ordinarily serve as the route by which water from the retention area would reach Ash Slough. Under extremely wet conditions, however, water from the retention area could overflow the weir. The intervening petitioners own land on Ash Slough downstream from the retention area and adjacent to the southern boundary of the phase I tract. No formal studies of the likely effects of the proposed construction downstream were undertaken by Coquina or by SFWMD in evaluating Coquina's application. The surface water management plan given conceptual approval by SFWMD provides: The quantity of runoff flowing to the south through existing sloughs will be controlled to protect the downstream areas against flooding whereas at the present there is no control. The amount flowing to the existing sloughs to the south during the 25 yr. design storm will be limited to the amount flowing to those sloughs before any development takes place. Lesser storms will be more completely retained on the property. Controlled discharge will be provided from retention areas to the existing sloughs for the purpose of nourishing these streams. Coquina's exhibit No. 1, p. 1. (Emphasis supplied) Since no records of the amount of discharge to Ash Slough "before any development" are in existence, certain assumptions and estimates were made. One such assumption on which the application for construction permit proceeds is that the phase I tract all drains to the south, in its present state. In fact, some of the water now leaving the phase I tract travels in a westerly direction and never enters Ash Slough, at least under some weather conditions. If the proposed construction is accomplished, the phase I tract would all drain to the south through Ash Slough. As things now stand, a significant amount of water leaves the phase I tract by evapotranspiration. If the water table were lowered two and a half feet, which is what Coquina proposes, less water would leave the phase I tract by evapotranspiration, leaving more water to flow over the ground. In estimating the quantity of the anticipated discharge to Ash Slough, if the proposed construction takes place, it is necessary to take into account drainage onto the phase I tract from adjoining lands. Coquina has failed to furnish plans and supporting calculations sufficient to insure that the proposed construction will not increase the amount of flow to Ash Slough during the 25 year design storm. Increased flow to Ash Slough would aggravate downstream landowners' drainage problems, unless the slough could handle the additional flow, a question which the application does not address. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 34O So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which is attached as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That SFWMD deny Coquina's application for construction permit. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX Paragraph one of intervening Bass petitioners' proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except that the evidence did not demonstrate that downstream landowners would in fact be harmed. Paragraphs two, three, four, five, six and seven of intervening Bass petitioners' proposed findings of fact have been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. Paragraph one of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except for the date of the application. Paragraphs two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and thirteen of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact have been adopted in substance, insofar as relevant. Paragraph ten of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact stated a conclusion of law, in part. While "testimony was presented that the construction of Phase I would have no substantial adverse affect [sic] on surrounding properties," the evidence as a whole did not establish this fact. Paragraphs eleven and twelve of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact have not been adopted because they were not established by the evidence, except for subparagraph eleven (f), which was proven. COPIES FURNISHED: John Henry Wheeler, Esquire South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Robert Birenbaum, President Viking Communities Corporation (Coquina Water Management District) 123 Northeast 70 Street Miami, Florida 33138 Kyle S. Van Landingham, Esquire County Attorney Okeechobee County Courthouse Okeechobee, Florida 33472 Andrew B. Jackson, Esquire J.C. Bass & Bass Ranch, Inc. Post Office Box 488 Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Emerson Allsworth, Esquire 1177 Southeast Third Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mr. Bob Wittenberg Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dr. Patrick M. McCaffrey Kissimmee Coordinating Council 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George Stansbury Central Florida Regional Planning Council Post Office Box 2089 Bartow, Florida 33830
