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
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the requested dredge and fill permit and stormwater permits be issued to applicant to construct the northern extension of the Eastern Beltway of the Orlando-Orange County Expressway System in Orange County, Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 17th day of September, 1986.
Findings Of Fact The Intervenors filed an Application for Dredge and Fill Permit with the Department of Environmental Regulation. The Department entered a notice of its intent to issue a permit. Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing. The Department forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, where it was given Case No. 82-3155. A Recommended Order which includes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law has been entered in Case No. 82-3155. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set out in the Recommended Order are hereby incorporated into this Final Order and constitute a part of this Final Order. The Petitioner is an association of home owners within a residential development known as "Caloosa." Intervenors are seeking to develop an industrial park on land adjacent to the Caloosa development. Surface and ground waters from the proposed industrial park would drain toward Caloosa. Prior to the Department's entry of the notice of intent to issue a permit to Intervenors, the Department's personnel evaluated the application in free-form proceedings. An environmental specialist who works with the Department as a permit processor proposed to deny the application on account of the fact that Intervenors proposed to fill approximately 70 acres of wetlands, 24 of which were within the Department's permitting authority under Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code. The administrator of the Department's Dredge and Fill Permitting Section came to the conclusion that denial of the application could not be justified. He felt that the wetlands to be filled served only marginally to preserve water quality in the area. The Intervenors had proposed to artificially create wetland areas in order to compensate for the loss of filled wetland areas. The program administrator suggested to the permit processor that they negotiate to get the Intervenors to create additional artificial wetlands in order to mitigate against any possible adverse effect from the loss of natural wetland areas. These negotiations occurred, and the Intervenors agreed to increase artificially created wetland areas. The Department of Environmental Regulation does not have a rule which provides that its personnel can engage in negotiations respecting a permit application. Negotiations are, however, an inherent part of a permitting process. The Department does not have any written or unwritten policy whereby it accepts such mitigating factors as artificially created wetlands as justifying the filling of natural wetlands. It does not appear that the Department has any rule or nonrule policy concerning mitigation or trade-offs, and it does not appear that the Department has ever had such a rule or policy. The Department does not have a policy of accepting concessions, trade-offs, or mitigating factors so as to allow an applicant to violate the Department's water quality standards. Since there has been a permitting process, such factors as artificially created wetlands have been considered by the Department in determining whether an application meets the Department's criteria for issuance of a permit. The Department's policy is to consider whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the short-term and long-term effects of proposed activities will not result in violations of water quality standards, as required under Rule 17- 4.28(3), Florida Administrative Code. If an applicant has proposed to construct artificial wetlands, the Department would logically consider it in making determinations about granting the permit. There is no evidence in the record of this proceeding from which it could be concluded that the Department has any unpromulgated "mitigation" policy which has the effect of a rule.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether 1044PVB, LLC (“Applicant”), is entitled to Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) No. IND-109-143282-1 from the St. Johns River Water Management District (“District”), authorizing the construction of a surface water management system to serve a proposed residential development in St. Johns County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Nancy Condron is a resident and landowner in St. Johns County. Her residence is located across Ponte Vedra Boulevard from the Project. Petitioner uses the nearby Guana River Wildlife Management Area for nature-based recreation, including hiking and bird-watching. Applicant is a foreign limited liability company and the applicant for the ERP at issue in this case. The District is an independent special district granted powers and assigned duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including powers and duties related to the regulation of construction activities in wetlands. The Project is within the boundaries of the District. The Project Site The Project site is 17.13 acres located at 1044 Ponte Vedra Boulevard in St. Johns County, Florida. The site currently consists of forested lands on the east and west and pasture areas in the middle. There is an existing trail road that runs the length of the property and a small residence. The site has four small ponds excavated as watering holes, ranging in size from 0.04 to 0.24 acres. There are 4.41 acres of wetlands and other surface waters on the site. There is a 3.49-acre area of mixed forested wetland on the site that continues offsite to the south and west. There are also three isolated wetlands on the site, each less than a half-acre in size. The wetland system adjacent to the Project site flows to the Guana River. The Guana River is a freshwater, Class III waterbody. It is an Outstanding Florida Water, but has been designated by the Department of Environmental Protection as impaired for nutrients. The site is not used by threatened or endangered species for feeding, nesting, or breeding. The Project The proposed Project is a 22-lot, single-family subdivision. The proposed surface water management system for the Project includes curb and gutter paved roadways, storm inlets, concrete pipes, vegetated natural buffers, treatment swales, and a wet detention stormwater pond. The wet detention stormwater pond would discharge into adjacent wetlands that flow to the Guana River. Wetlands The point of discharge from the Project’s stormwater management system is not in the designated Outstanding Florida Water. Applicant proposes to fill the four ponds and the three isolated wetlands. Applicant also proposes to fill 0.28 acres of the larger wetland. The Project includes a number of upland buffers that are a minimum of 15 feet in width and average of 25 feet in width. These buffers are intended to prevent potential adverse secondary impacts to adjacent wetlands. All wetland impacts and mitigation were assessed using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-345. The UMAM assessment takes into consideration the location and landscape support, water environment, and community structure of the wetlands to be impacted. The District also considers the condition, hydrologic connection, uniqueness, location, and the fish and wildlife utilization of the wetlands and other surface waters. The District did not require mitigation for filling the artificial ponds. The District also did not require mitigation for filling the isolated wetlands because each is less than a half-acre in size. As mitigation for filling 0.28 acres of the larger wetland, Applicant would purchase 0.25 mitigation bank credits from the St. Marks Pond Mitigation Bank. The St. Marks Pond Mitigation Bank is located in the same drainage basin as the wetland area that would be filled. The District determined that purchasing the mitigation bank credits would offset the functional loss associated with filling part of the wetland. Two areas on the site where no upland buffers are proposed were assessed for secondary impacts to wetlands in the UMAM evaluation. The mitigation bank credits proposed for the Project would offset all of the adverse, direct, and secondary impacts to wetlands or surface waters associated with this Project. Because direct and secondary impacts would be fully mitigated, the Project would not cause cumulative impacts. Water Quantity A majority of the Project’s stormwater runoff would be conveyed to the wet detention pond. The wet detention pond provides water quantity protection by attenuating the post- development peak rate of discharge. Applicant modeled the pre-development peak rate of discharge and the post-development peak rate of discharge. The modeling indicated that the post-development peak rate of discharge will not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. Section 3.3 of the Applicant's Handbook, Volume II, prohibits a reduction in the 10-year or 100-year floodplain for projects with an upstream drainage basin of five square miles or greater. The proposed Project has an upstream drainage basin of 4.6 square miles, so this criterion is not applicable. Applicant showed the Project would increase offsite flood elevations by only 0.01 feet, which is negligible. The Project would not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands. Water Quality Water quality would be managed in the Project through a combination of wet detention pond, swales, and vegetative natural buffers (“VNBs”). The wet detention pond would treat a majority of the runoff from the Project. Section 8 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume II, contains presumptive criteria for the design of a wet detention pond. The proposed wet detention pond meets the presumptive criteria. Therefore, the detention pond is presumed to provide reasonable assurance that the water quality of receiving waters will be protected. Applicant is proposing to construct swales at the back of Lots 20, 21, and 22 to treat runoff by infiltration. Section 9 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume II, contains presumptive criteria for swale system design and performance. The Project meets the presumptive criteria for swales. Applicant is proposing VNBs on Lots 1 through 14. The use of VNBs is a commonly-used best management practice accepted by the District for treating stormwater runoff. Like swales, VNBs treat runoff by infiltration. Stormwater runoff from the backyards of Lots 1 through 14 would drain to the VNBs. On some of these lots, stormwater runoff from the front yards, side yards, and rooftops would also drain to the VNBs. The lots would be graded so that runoff would sheet flow to the VNBs to maximize their treatment function. The VNBs would have native soils and plants. The VNBs would have Type A soils, which are well-drained soils that provide the highest rate of infiltration and the most permeability. Petitioner contends that, because soil borings were not taken at the location of the VNBs, reasonable assurance was not provided that the VNBs would function as proposed. However, Petitioner did not show that the soils at the VNB locations were unsuitable soils. In addition, Applicant agreed to use Type A soils in the VNBs. Therefore, reasonable assurance that the VNBs would have suitable soils was provided by Applicant. Petitioner referred to a draft rule to support her contention that the proposed VNBs are not properly designed, but the draft rule has no controlling effect and is hearsay. The Applicant’s Handbook does not contain presumptive criteria for VNBs. Applicant demonstrated that the VNBs would infiltrate 80 percent of the runoff from a three-year, one-hour storm event, which is the same treatment efficiency the District requires when swales are used. Reasonable assurance was provided that the VNBs would function as proposed. Because the Project would discharge to wetlands that flow to the Guana River, a waterbody impaired by nutrients, section 2.2 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume II, requires Applicant to demonstrate there would be a net improvement in water quality with respect to nutrients. Applicant performed a pollutant loading analysis using the BMPTRAINS model. The BMPTRAINS model is a generally-accepted tool used by stormwater engineers for this purpose. The BMPTRAINS model incorporates the information about the pre- and post-development conditions associated with land use and impervious area. The model accounts for site-specific conditions, including the elevation of the groundwater table and storage capacity of the soil. The design of the surface water management system is then incorporated into the model to estimate the pollutant removal efficiency and estimate the average annual pollutant load that will leave the site. Applicant’s BMPTRAINS modeling indicated that the average annual post-development loading for total nitrogen and total phosphorus would be substantially less than the pre- development loading for those nutrients. Therefore, Applicant demonstrated the Project would result in a net improvement. Operation & Maintenance The Ponte Vedra Beach Preserve Homeowners Association would be the entity responsible for operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system. The wet detention pond, swales, and VNBs would be located within an easement and maintained by the homeowner’s association. Applicant and the Ponte Vedra Beach Preserve Homeowners Association have the ability to accept responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the Project. Public Interest An applicant for an ERP must demonstrate that a proposed project affecting wetlands and other surface waters would not be contrary to the public interest. This determination is made by balancing seven factors found in section 10.2.3(a) through (g) of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I. Public interest factor (a) is whether the regulated activity will adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare, or the property of others. There is no aspect of the Project that would affect public health, safety, or welfare, except the potential for flooding. Reasonable assurance was provided by Applicant that the Project would not cause flooding. Factor (b) is whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats. The mitigation bank credits offset all of the potential adverse impacts that the proposed project would have on the conservation of fish and wildlife. Factor (c) is whether the regulated activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The parties stipulated that the Project will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The record evidence shows the Project will not adversely affect the flow of water. Factor (d) is whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The Project would not affect fishing or recreational values in the vicinity. The mitigation bank credits offset all of the potential adverse impacts the proposed project would have on marine productivity in the vicinity. Factor (e) is whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature. The activities are of a permanent nature. The mitigation is also permanent. Factor (f) is whether the regulated activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources. The Project will have no effect on historical and archaeological resources. Factor (g) is the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity. The relatively small loss of functional value would be offset by the proposed mitigation. Considering and balancing these seven factors, the Project would not be contrary to the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of Environmental Resource Permit No. IND-109-143282-1 to 1044PVB, LLC, with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report dated April 11, 2016. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen C. Ferguson, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 (eServed) Jane West, Esquire Josh Smith, Esquire Jane West Law, P.L. 6277 A1A South, Suite 101 St. Augustine, Florida 32080 (eServed) Eric Olsen, Esquire Amelia A. Savage, Esquire Hopping, Green and Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Ann B. Shortelle, Ph.D., Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Lake Powell Improvement Corporation is a consortium of interested owners of land comprising the majority of the Lake Powell shoreline. Camp Helen Company, one of its members, owns lake property which was formerly operated as a recreational facility for associates of Avondale Mills. Camp Helen Company now holds the property for the possibility of future development. George Jeter is one of approximately 76 persons who sent a form letter to the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in opposition to the designation of Lake Powell/Phillips Inlet as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The rule-making proceeding to designate Lake Powell/Phillips Inlet an OFW was initiated with a petition filed on June 11, 1987, by the St. Andrews Bay Resource Management Association, a private citizens' organization formed in 1986 to help protect wildlife and resources in the St. Andrews Bay area. A public workshop was conducted by DER on September 6, 1990, in Panama City, Florida. Approximately 70 persons attended the workshop, including Bay County residents, Walton County residents, Lake Powell area property owners and representatives from various organizations. Craig Crockard, Vice President of Lake Powell Improvement Corporation, opposed the designation based on alleged degradation of property values and tax base, negative impact on growth and increase in road maintenance costs. Agency staff encouraged workshop participants and members of the public to submit information, including economic information, that would aid in the decision-making process. Only general and speculative information was received, with the exception of a response from the Department of Transportation that costs of future construction and expansion of the Phillips Inlet bridge, part of four-laning Highway 98, would be increased by $1.5 million as a result of the OFW regulations. DER sent a letter to Craig Crockard, received on April 2, 1991, requesting specifics as to the property owners' development plans and estimated economic impacts by April 5th. Crockard responded that the deadline was too short and that it was obvious that the decision had already been made. At no time, up to and including the hearing before the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC), did Petitioners or other opponents provide information as to specific economic impacts of the proposed designation. The proposed rule would add the following area to rule 17- 302.700(9)(i), F.A.C. specifying special waters under the OFW designation: Special Waters * * * Lake Powell, Phillips Inlet, and all tributaries to Lake Powell as bounded by the following described line: Begin at the Northwest corner of Section 26, Township 2 South, Range 18 West; thence East to the Northwest corner of Section 29, Township 2 South, Range 17 West; thence South to the Northwest corner of the SW 1/4 of Section 29, Township 2 South, Range 17 West; thence East to the West line of Section 27, Township 2 South, Range 17 West, thence South to the mean high water line of the Gulf of Mexico; thence meander Northwest along the mean high water line to the West line of Section 35, Township 2 South, Range 18 West; thence North to the point of beginning ( - - 91). * * * In making its determination to recommend OFW designation for Lake Powell to the ERC, the Department compared Lake Powell to other water bodies. Lake Powell was found to be exceptionally ecologically and recreationally significant in terms of size, water quality and recreational usage. The Department makes its determination as to whether the proposed water body is exceptional by making direct comparisons to features of other water bodies, and by relying on the professional judgements of others familiar with the particular class of water bodies. Lake Powell has been compared by professionals familiar with other water bodies in the area and in their opinion it has exceptional value as an ecosystem. The Department relied on professional judgement of this type as well as its own findings when making the determination that Lake Powell was exceptional. Lake Powell is located in Bay and Walton Counties in Northwest Florida adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. Its total surface area of 737 acres makes it the largest by far of any of a series of similar lakes in the area. Seven small streams provide fresh water to the lake; periodically Phillips Inlet, connecting the lake to the Gulf of Mexico, opens or closes. When the inlet is open, the lake becomes estuarine in nature. Most of the shoreline of Lake Powell is still undeveloped and the lake is significant in that it has experienced only minimal adverse impact from human activity. There are no permitted point source discharges to Lake Powell. It is basin-shaped, with a shallow shell, steep sandy slopes, and a flat bottom ranging from approximately 10 to 20 feet deep. Silty, high organic sediments in the water are amenable to degradation and are uniquely sensitive to pollution. Restricted flushing and the opportunity for development growth in the area add to that sensitivity. Lake Powell is a Class III waterbody. Water quality in the lake is good, and meets Class III standards; some parameters are as good as Class II standards. The low dissolved oxygen level in the lake is a result of natural conditions, is not a result of pollution, and is therefore not a violation of the Class III standard for dissolved oxygen. Lake Powell is one of the lakes in the state that is part of the water quality sampling effort known as Lake Watch. A benefit of OFW designation to this effort will be that Lake Powell, absent degradation, can serve as a control lake to compare other Lake Watch lakes throughout the State. At least 170 species of birds, (trust resources of the US Fish and Wildlife Service), have been observed and are dependent on Lake Powell. Unusual species include the piping plover (federally and state designated threatened), snowy plover (state designated threatened), least tern (state designated threatened), and bald eagle (federally designated endangered and state designated threatened). These species have a direct dependence on Lake Powell for habitat, feeding, or nesting areas. They are dependent on non-trust species such as small fishes which could be impacted by chemicals introduced to the lake. Edwin James Kepner, a biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service, has identified three new species of nematodes which so far have been uniquely found in Lake Powell. Although nematode species are among the most abundant on earth (97,000 individuals may be found in a single rotting apple), they are a highly significant part of an ecological system and must be understood and studied for any understanding of marine communities. The lake supports a diversity of animals. At least 87 species of macrobenthic invertebrates and 67 species of fin fish inhabit the lake, a diversity based on the system's intermittent connection to the Gulf and the lake's relatively pristine condition compared to other lakes. One would expect to find even more diversity, 3 to 4 times more species, if better and more accurate sampling methods were employed. Lake Powell presents a unique nursery area, since most large predator fishes do not have access to it. The lake presently supports a variety of recreational activities, including canoeing, sailing, windsurfing, water-skiing, fishing, crabbing and picnicking. This recreational use has increased during the last five years. Lake Powell is ranked 36th out of 361 lakes statewide in a 1982 study of recreational usage. In terms of potential to the public for recreational usage, Lake Powell has three public access points to the lake, and a possible fourth. Public access is gained by a Bay County public park and by way of Gulf View Drive, which is owned by Bay County and used to launch boats. There is a public dock in Walton County which is also used extensively. The fourth access is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Bay County Audubon Society. The unusual quality of recreational experience lies in the pristine nature of the lake and the fact that it is located not far from the Miracle Strip in Panama City Beach. The ERC Commissioners, who were taken on a tour of the lake, were able to contrast the two areas and found that Lake Powell had unusual recreational value. Lake Powell provides an exceptional educational opportunity, and with its many different types of habitat it is a compact, manageable educational laboratory. As compared to the St. Andrews Bay System it would be much easier to collect samples, obtain information on biotic communities and generally conduct research on the effectiveness of regulatory programs, due to the manageable size of the lake. The proposed amendment to Rule 17-302.700(9)(i), F.A.C., to designate Lake Powell as an OFW would potentially affect future Department permit applicants by requiring they provide the Department with reasonable assurances that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest and that the proposed project would not lower existing ambient water quality standards (Rule 17-4.242, F.A.C.); by requiring that direct stormwater discharges into the lake include an additional 50% treatment level (Rule 17-25.025(9), F.A.C.); and by reducing the exemption for private residential docks from 1000 square feet to 500 square feet (Rule 17-4.04(9)(c), F.A.C.). These requirements will result in increased costs to permit applicants, although the costs cannot be calculated at this time since there are no such projects firmly proposed to the Department. The primary beneficial effect of the proposed rule would be the protection of future water quality based on existing ambient water quality standards at time of OFW designation. Pursuant to Section 120.54(2), F.S., an Economic Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by the Department. Section 120.54(2)(b), F.S., requires the statement to include: * * * An estimate of the cost to the agency of the implementation of the proposed action, including the estimated amount of paperwork; An estimate of the cost or the economic benefit to all persons directly affected by the proposed action; An estimate of the impact of the proposed action on competition and the open market for employment, if applicable; A detailed statement of the data and method used in making each of the above estimates; and An analysis of the impact on small business as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. Additionally, Rule 17-302.700(4)(e) provides: An economic impact analysis consistent with Chapter 120, shall be prepared which provides a general analysis of the impact on growth and development including such factors as impacts on planned or potential industrial, agricultural, or other development or expansion. It is undisputed that the EIS properly addressed the costs of implementation to the Department. The EIS identified the kind of Department permit applicant that would potentially be affected by the rule amendment, and what kinds of developmental impacts could be expected by operation of other Department rules. The EIS did not identify any specific costs that would be attributable to the rule, as the Department was unaware of any specific development plans for the lake that would be subject to the Department rules. Existing development activities are grandfathered and would not be affected by the more stringent requirements. The Department stated in its EIS that the overall costs imposed on future development due to the proposed OFW designation would depend on both the nature of the development and its impact on the ambient water quality of the lake. Since the type and nature of future development in the area is uncertain, an estimate of the potential aggregate costs associated with the proposed OFW designation could not be made at the time the EIS was prepared. The EIS properly addressed the costs of the proposed rule to the parties, based upon the facts as known to the Department. The benefits to the public of the rule were stated to be largely environmental, as a result of protection of future ambient water quality standards in the lake. The EIS cited an economic benefit to land owners around the lake in the form of enhanced property values due to water quality protections of the OFW designation, water quality being an important variable in determining property values of waterfront property. That property values would be enhanced is based on the DER economist's study of another state's experience and experience with OFW designation in other Florida counties. The EIS properly addresses the benefits of the rule. The EIS states that there will be no significant effect on competition as a result of the proposed OFW designation; Petitioners have not presented any evidence to the contrary. The EIS adequately addresses the rule's effect on competition. The EIS states that the proposed OFW designation is not expected to create any significant adverse disproportionate impacts on small businesses, as required by Section 120.54(2)(b)5., F.S. As Petitioners have not introduced any evidence to the contrary, the EIS adequately addresses this issue. The EIS states that appropriate economic analysis techniques were employed preparing the EIS. Petitioners participated in the rulemaking process; they attended the Panama City workshop when economic information was solicited; they submitted written comments, none of which provided specific economic information; and they participated in the ERC hearing but offered no evidence to the Commission regarding economic impacts of the rule. The type of information they suggest that the Department should consider was not submitted by them, or anyone else, during the rulemaking process or this hearing. The evidence shows that the Department considered all comments submitted throughout the rulemaking process in making the recommendation of OFW designation to the ERC. The EIS properly explains the data and methodology used in its preparation, and this data and methodology was adequate to estimate the economic impacts of the rule. In January 1991, the Bay County Board of County Commissioners amended the County's comprehensive plan to provide special protection for Lake Powell. These provisions include more stringent requirements for stormwater retention and detention, an objective to maintain Lake Powell's water quality at its present level, restriction on use of household septic tanks, designation of a low-density residential zone, and prohibition of point source discharges which would lower existing water quality. (Joint Exhibit #1, Appendix D) Both parties have invoked the plan amendments for their own purpose. Petitioners argue that the plan amendments provide the same or greater protection than the proposed OFW designation and that the designation is not needed. This argument ignores the fact that at least 10% of the lake lies within Walton County, outside Bay County's jurisdiction. DER did not require Bay County to amend its plan and could not require it to maintain the new Lake Powell protections indefinitely. The OFW designation does not detract from or conflict with the local government's commendable initiative, but rather augments it. Respondent, DER, addresses the plan in its modified EIS where it discusses the contention by the Department of Transportation (DOT) that OFW designation will add $1.5 million in costs to widen a road at the Phillips Inlet bridge. DER's economist concedes that designation will result in additional costs and has discussed that in the EIS. Because he has not received back-up data from DOT he is unable to confirm that the cost will be as much as DOT asserts. He also attributes the increase to the new stormwater requirements of the Bay County comprehensive plan, and concludes the additional costs due to OFW designation might be zero. (Joint Exhibit #2, p. 7) Even if misplaced, the attribution of costs does not invalidate the EIS or the proposed designation. The EIS generally describes potential costs and provides a basis to weigh the environmental, social and economic costs against the environmental, social and economic benefits. In summary, the facts above support the ERC's finding that the waters selected for designation are of exceptional recreational or ecological significance and the benefits of designation outweigh its costs.
Findings Of Fact The property has been annexed into the Acme Improvement District (Intervenor) by Special Act of the Florida Legislature. Petitioner purchased 487.7 acres of this tract from private owners in 1954. Subsequently, Petitioner purchased 653.59 acres from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida on or about March 4, 1960. The balance of the land constituting the property is a 224 acre hiatus tract owned by Marshall Brown with whom Petitioner has an agricultural use agreement. A parcel of Petitioner's land within the property includes a commercial lease to Malrite Corporation for siting a television antenna, consisting of 111 acres in the southeast corner of the property. This area is within the permit application. The tract is otherwise undeveloped and is currently submerged or semi- submerged during much of the year. Petitioner's development plan envisions drainage of this tract and use of the property for cultivation. The property is bounded on the north by Acme Improvement District, on the east by a subdivision called Homeland, on the west by Water Conservation Area #1, also known as the Loxahatchee Refuge, and on the south by undeveloped lands. The boundaries of the Loxahatchee Refuge actually encroach by approximately 300 feet into the property. The property development plan, which is the basis of this application, was prepared by the engineering firm Gee and Jensen. This plan calls for the creation of a 240 acre reservoir of a proposed 3 foot maximum depth. This reservoir would hold the internal stormwater runoff for subsequent agricultural irrigation. Perimeter dikes are to be constructed to prevent surface water runoff from outside areas entering the project and perimeter ditches are to be developed for the deliverance of stormwater runoff from the internal agricultural system to proposed pump stations located at the southwest corner of the development area. On the northwest corner of the proposed reservoir, the existing Acme Improvement District pump station No. 2 would be increased in capacity by 27,000 gallons per minute. Under Acme's charter and its statutory annexation of the property, the proposed reservoir and water management works would become a unit of development controlled by Acme. Under Petitioner's agreement with the hiatus tract owner, Acme would be the exclusive manager and operator of the proposed system, and the property would become an integral part of Acme's water management system. The Acme Water Improvement District is not solely an agricultural support enterprise but serves the various uses which may evolve within its boundaries. The area is currently zoned for limited residential development as well as agricultural. The television antenna facility located on the property is an example of a non-agricultural use. Petitioner's surface water management system is proposed to discharge into the Acme system, which in turn discharges offsite. Discharge into the Acme system is of a limited nature, but the system is designed to discharge for successive days under wet conditions. The design discharge is not limited to an extreme rainfall event but would probably occur during the traditional hydrologic cycle of south Florida. Under conditions which reflect actual rainfall over the past 20 years, the proposed surface water management system would have discharged 19 out of 20 years into the Water Conservation Area (Loxahatchee Refuge). In some years this discharge would have continued for approximately three months. The unrebutted testimony of expert witnesses called by Respondent established that the entire 1,393 acre tract referred to herein as "the property" is a freshwater wetland habitat. The western half is emergent marsh land, while the eastern half is forested with woody species. The wetlands on the property form a valuable wildlife habitat. Environmentally, they are in excellent condition. This area has not been adversely affected by drainage, fire or exotic species. These marshes also have good habitat diversity. The populations of aquatic invertebrates and forage fishes that are produced in these Everglades marshes are utilized by the many species of wading birds that feed in these wetlands. The proposed project will adversely affect wildlife species, including a variety of wading birds which will likely be unable to relocate. While this is undesirable from an environmental standpoint, conversion of this land would provide benefits from an agricultural standpoint, and would create additional water recreational facilities.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying the application. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 30th day of November, 1983.
The Issue The issues to be decided in this case are whether Respondents are liable for the violations charged in the NOV, whether Respondents should pay the penalties assessed in the NOV, and whether Respondents should be required to take the corrective actions demanded in the NOV.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency with powers and duties related to the regulation of construction activities in wetlands and surface waters, including filling in wetlands. Respondents are individuals who own real property on Bayshore Road in North Fort Myers, Florida. Some confusion exists in the record about the street number for the property. It is alternately described as 11590, 11620, 11650, and 11850. This is partly due to the fact that the property consists of at least two recorded parcels. The actual location of the filled area is not disputed, nor is it disputed that Respondents own the property where the fill was placed. The property is adjacent to the Caloosahatchee River. It contains freshwater marsh wetlands dominated by Leather Fern. The Department conducted a site inspection of Respondents’ property and determined that Respondents had filled 0.96 acres of wetlands. The Department produced evidence that it incurred costs of $1,824.50 in this case. The corrective actions ordered in the NOV, which are designed to restore the wetlands that were filled, are reasonable.
Conclusions On May 11, 2007, the Division of Administrative Hearings (‘DOAH’) submitted a _ Recommended Order (“RO”) to the Department of Environmental Protection (‘DEP’) i in . these consolidated proceedings. Copies of the RO were served upon the Petitioners, Mellita A. Lane, Jacqueline M. Lane, Peter A. Lane, (“Lane Petitioners”); Friends of Perdido Bay,.Inc., and James A. Lane (“FOPB”); and the Co-Respondent, International Paper Company (“IP” ). On May 29, 2007, all Petitioners and Respondent IP filed Exceptions to the RO. Respondent DEP filed Exceptions to the RO and Motion for Remand. ; On June 8, 2007, the FOPB filed a Reply to IP’s Exceptions and a Response to DEP’s Motion for Remand and Exceptions. The Lane Petitioners filed their Response to iP’s and DEP’s Exceptions. Respondent DEP filed Responses to the Exceptions filed . by the FOPB, the Lane Petitioners and IP. Respondent IP filed Responses to the Exceptions of FOPB, the Lane Petitioners and DEP. This matter is now before me for. final agency action. . _ BACKGROUND » Florida Pulp and Paper Company first began operating the Cantonment paper mill in. 1941. St. Regis Paper Company (St. Regis” ) acquired the mill in 1946. In 4984, Champion International Corporation (“Champion”) acquired the mill. Champion changed the product mix in 1986 from unbleached packaging paper to bleached products such a as printing and writing grades c of paper. In 2001, Champion merged with IP, and IP took over operation of the mill. The primary product of the mill continues to | be printing and writing paper. ' The mill s wastewater effluent i is discharged into Elevenmile Creek, which is a tributary of Perdido Bay. The creek flows southwest into the northeastern portion of Perdido Bay. Elevenmile Creek is a freshwater stream for most of its length but is . sometimes tidally affected one to two miles from its mouth. Elevenmile Creek is designated as a Class I water. Perdido Bay is approximately 28 square miles in area and is bordered by Escambia County on the east and Baldwin County, Alabama, on the west. The dividing line between ‘the states runs north and south in the approximate middle of Perdido Bay. U.S. Highway 98 crosses the Bay, going east and west, and forms the boundary between what is-often referred to as the “Upper Bay” and “Lower Bay.” The Bay is relatively shallow, especially | in the Upper Bay, ranging in depth between five and ten feet. Perdido Bay i is designated asa Class ill water. Sometime around 1900, a manmade navigation channel was cut through the narrow strip of land separating Perdido Bay from the Gulf of Mexico. The channel, called Perdido Pass, allowed the salt waters of the Gulf to move with the tides up into Perdido Bay. Depending on tides and freshwater inflows, the tidal waters can move into the most northern portions of Perdido Bay and even further, into its tributaries and wetlands. The Perdido River flows into the northwest portion of Perdido Bay. Itis primarily a freshwater river but itis sometimes tidally influenced at and near its mouth. The Perdido River was designated an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW’) in 11979. At the north end of Perdido Bay, between Elevenmile Creek and the Perdido River, isa large tract of land owned by IP called the Rainwater Tract, The northern part of the tract is primarily freshwater wetlands. The southern partis a tidal marsh. Tee and Wicker Lakes are small (approximately 50 acres in total surface area) tidal ponds within the tidal marsh. Depending on the tides, the lakes can be as shallow as one foot, or several feet deep. A channel through the marsh allows boaters to gain access to Tee and Wicker Lakes from Perdido Bay. | ' Before 1995, the mill had to have both state and federal permits. The former Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (‘DER’) issued St. Regis an industrial wastewater operating permit in 1982 pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") issued St. Regis a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“ NPDES") permit i in 1983 pursuant to the Clean Water Act. When it acquired the facility in 1984, Champion continued to operate the mill under these two permits. In 1986, Champion obtained a construction permit from DER to install the oxygen delignification technology and other improvements to its wastewater treatment plant (‘WWTP’) in conjunction with the conversion of the production process from an unbleached to a modified bleached kraft production - process. In 1987, Champion applied to DER for an operating permit-for its modified WWITP and also petitioned for a variance from the Class iI water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for iron, specific conductance, zinc, and transparency. DER's . subsequent proposal to issue the operating permit and variance was formally challenged. In 1988, while the challenges to the DER permit and variance were still pending, Champion dropped its application for the operating permit and requested a . temporary operating permit ("TOP"), instead. In December 1989, DER and Champion entered into Consent Order No. 87-1398 (‘the 1989 Consent Order’). The 1989 Consent Order included an allegation by DER that the mill's wastewater discharge was causing violations of state water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for dissolved oxygen (“DO”), un-ionized ammonia, and biological integrity. The 1989 Consent Order authorized the continued operation of the mill, but established a process for addressing the water quality problems in Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay and bringing the mill into compliance in the future. Champion was required to install equipment to increase the DO in its effluent within a year. Champion was also required to submit a plan of study and, 30 months after DER's approval of the plan of study, to submit a study report on the impacts of the mill's effluent on DO in Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay and recommend measures for reducing or eliminating adverse impacts. The study report was also supposed to address the other water quality violations caused by Champion. A comprehensive study of the Perdido Bay system was undertaken by a team of 24 scientists lead by Dr. Robert Livingston, an aquatic ecologist and professor at Florida State University. The initial three-year study by Dr. Livingston's team of scientists was followed bya series of related scientific studies, which are referred to collectively in the RO as “the Livingston studies.” The 1989 Consent Order had no expiration date, but it was tied to the TOP, , which had an expiration date of December 1, 1994. Champion was to be in compliance with all applicable water quality standards by that date. The mill was not in compliance with all water quality standards in December 1 994. No enforcement action was taken by the Department and no modification of the 1989 Consent Order or TOP was formally proposed that would have provided a point of entry to any members of the public who might have objected. instead, the Department agreed through correspondence with . Champion to allow Champion to pursue additional water quality studies and to investigate alternatives to its discharge to Elevenmile Creek. - In 1994 and 1995, Champion applied to renew its state and federal wastewater permits, which were about to expire. The Department and EPA notified Champion that its existing permits were administratively extended during the review of the new permit applications. Today, the Cantonment mill is still operating under the 1989 TOP which, due to the administrative extension, did not terminate in December 1994, as stated on its face. In November 1 995, following EPA's delegation of NPDES permitting authority to the Department, the Department issued an order combining the state and federal ‘operating permits into a single permit identified as Wastewater Permit Number FLO002526-002-IWF/MT. During the period from 1992 to 2001, more water quality studies were conducted and Champion investigated alternatives to discharging into upper Elevenmile Creek, including land application of the effluent and relocation of the discharge to lower Elevenmiie Creek or the Escambia River. . In September 2002, while Champion's 1994 permit renewal application was still pending at DEP, IP submitted a revised permit renewal application to upgrade the WWTP and relocate its discharge. The WwTP upgrades consist of converting toa. modified activated sludge treatment process, incteasing aeration, constructing storm surge ponds, and adding a process for pH adjustment. The new WWTP would have an average daily effluent discharge of 23.8 million gallons per day (‘MGD’). IP proposes to convey the treated effluent by-pipeline 10.7 miles to the 1,464-acre wetland tract owned by IP (contained within-the larger Rainwater Tract), where the effluent would be distributed over the wetlands as it flows to lower Elevenmile Creek and Upper Perdido Bay. IP revised its permit application again in October 2005, to obtain authorization to: reconfigure the mill to produce unbleached brown paper for various grades of boxes. If the mill is reconfigured, only softwood (pine) would be used in the new process. On April 12, 2005, the Department published notice of its intent fo issue a proposed permit, consent order, experimental wetland exemption, and waiver. The — Department authorizations would allow IP to change its industrial wastewater treatment system at the mill, construct an effluent distribution system within the wetland tract, construct the 10.7-mile pipeline to transport its treated wastewater to the wetlands, and discharge the treated wastewater into the wetlands. In April 2005, Mellita A. Lane, Jacqueline M. Lane, Zachary P. Lane, Peter A. Lane, and Sarah M. Lane (“Lane Petitioners”) filed identical petitions challenging the Department authorizations on numerous grounds. The Department forwarded the petitions to DOAH for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The Lane Petitioners subsequently amended their petitions. In May 2005, Friends of Perdido Bay, Inc., and James Lane filed a petition for | hearing to challenge the Department authorizations. The FOPB petition was forwarded to DOAH and the pending cases were consolidated for the fi nal hearing. The FOPB petition was subsequently amended. In October 2005, while the cases were pending, IP applied for a revision to its NPDES permit renewal application. The cases were abated so that the DEP could review and act on the permit revision. In January 2006, DEP issued a proposed revised | NPDES permit and a corresponding First Amendment to Consent Order. On July 26, 2006, the Department filed without objection a revision to the Consent Order. On July 31, 2006, the Department filed Joint Trial Exhibit 18 that integrated the Consent Order dated April 12, 2005, the First Amendment to Consent Order dated January 11, 2006, and the Department’s Notice of Minor Revision {o Consent Order filed on July 26, 2006. The DOAH Administrative Law Judge CALL") held a lengthy final hearing in these consolidated cases on May 31, June 1, 2, and.26 through 30, and July 17, 27, and 28, 2006. Prior to the hearing, the parties filed their Joint Pre-Hearing sit on May 24, 2006. The ALJ subsequenty submitted his RO on May 11, 2007. -
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner Cargor Partners VIII – Long Bar Pointe, LLLP (“Cargor”) is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2017).
Findings Of Fact Notice On February 17, 2017, the attorney for Cargor sent Joseph McClash a letter on law firm stationary. In the first paragraph of the letter it states, “Please allow this letter to serve as notice of Cargor’s intent to seek relief pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (the “Statute”) against you, individually as qualified representative, and the named Petitioner.” Cargor sent an email to McClash on February 28, 2017, reminding McClash that “the 57.105 deadline is March 10, 2017.” McClash referred to a motion for attorney’s fees that he received on or about March 13, 2017, but the motion was not shown to the Administrative Law Judge nor introduced into evidence. On April 5, 2017, the same day that McClash voluntarily dismissed the petition for hearing in DOAH Case No. 17-0655, Cargor filed with DOAH its motion for attorney’s fees under section 57.105. Contested Claims The renewal of a FDOW is governed by section 373.421(2), Florida Statutes, which states in relevant part that the FDOW shall be renewed “as long as physical conditions on the property have not changed, other than changes which have been authorized by a permit pursuant to this part, so as to alter the boundaries of surface waters or wetlands.” If the boundaries of wetlands or other surface waters have been altered without a permit, the FDOW cannot be renewed and an application for a new FDOW is required. The SWFWMD reviewer explained in a letter requesting additional information from Cargor: Please be advised that letters of exemption do not qualify as permits issued under Part IV of chapter 373, F.S. and therefore if work has been done on the site that has altered the wetlands or other surface water boundaries in association with a letter of exemption, a new formal determination application will be required. McClash claims Cargor did not qualify for the renewal of its FDOW because Cargor altered the boundaries of surface waters or wetlands on its property after the 2011 FDOW was issued and the some of the alterations were made pursuant to letter of exemption. In its February 17, 2017, letter to McClash, Cargor set forth six grounds for Cargor’s contention that McClash’s petition for hearing should be withdrawn. The first three grounds were described in Cargor’s letter as follows: The Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters, dated December 28, 2016, which is the subject of this Proceeding, does not authorize any construction activity. Consequently, no standing to challenge is or could be properly presented. There is no injury in fact and no one is in immediate danger of a direct injury from the issuance of the Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters, dated December 28, 2016, as of the date and time of filing the Petition in this Proceeding. Consequently, no standing to challenge is or could be properly presented. The Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters, dated December 28, 2016, is not a permit, license, or authorization. Consequently, no standing to challenge is or could be properly presented by an association. These were issues of law and they were decided against Cargor in an Order dated February 28, 2017. The fourth and fifth grounds described in Cargor’s letter involve the central issue in the case: Changes in the land have been previously authorized by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”) pursuant to existing and final permits including (i) SWFWMD ERP No. 43040157.001, dated August 6, 2014, (ii) SWFWMD CONCEPTUAL ERP No. 49040157.002, dated September 4, 2015, (iii) SWFWMD ERP No. 4304157.003, dated March 31, 2016, and (iv) SWFWMD Notice of Qualification for Permanent Farming Exemption, dated August 30, 2016. Changes in the land are authorized by the identified permits and authorizations. All changes in the land have occurred pursuant to the identified permits and authorizations. Allegations to the contrary are simply false and are not supported by material facts. In 2015, Cargor was issued a “Conceptual ERP” permit, which describes, among other things, planned modifications to some agricultural ditches. However, the conceptual permit does not allow the commencement of construction activities. On August 30, 2016, SWFWMD issued to Cargo a Permanent Farming Exemption, pursuant to section 373.406(13), which authorized Cargor to excavate three agricultural ponds in uplands. In its application for the exemption, Cargor also proposed to modify some agricultural ditches. On March 31, 2017, SWFWMD issued Cargor an ERP Individual Construction Major Modification, which, among other things, authorized work in ditches. This permit was issued just before McClash’s voluntary dismissal and, therefore, could not have authorized the changes on Cargor’s property that McClash described in the petition for hearing. Before filing his petition, McClash consulted with a wetland scientist, Clark Hull, about the merits of McClash’s proposed challenge to the FDOW renewal. Hull gave McClash an affirmative response, but his input was speculative because it was based on assumptions and representations that Hull had not investigated. McClash consulted with another wetland scientist, Pamela Fetterman, who conducted an “aerial, desktop review of publically available Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data.” Fetterman described her initial review as an evaluation of potential undelineated wetlands and other surface waters. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the delineation approved by the 2011 FDOW became final and could not be challenged by McClash. McClash then asked Fetterman to review changes in physical conditions on the property that occurred after the FDOW was issued. Fetterman produced a report (McClash Exhibit R-6), in which she opined that the changes to physical conditions on Cargor’s property “have a high likelihood of affecting the previously delineated landward extent of wetlands and other surface waters.” She stated further: [C]hanges in physical conditions of the property took place prior to issuance of the [FDOW renewal] as purported “exempt agricultural activities”, and include ditch dredging alterations to delineated other surface waters. . . . A Permanent Farming Request for Exemption Confirmation letter was applied for on August 23, 2016 for construction of these ponds and modification of existing ditches, some of which were determined to be jurisdictional other surface waters by the subsequently re-issued [FDOW]. At the final hearing on fees, neither McClash nor Cargor made clear to the Administrative Law Judge: (1) the physical changes to the property that were alleged to be authorized by permit, (2) the physical changes that were alleged to be authorized by exemption, or (3) any physical changes that were alleged to be unauthorized. The sixth ground described in Cargor’s letter is as follows: The picture attached to the Petition as set forth in Paragraph 9, and the stop work allegation set forth in Paragraph 10 are irrelevant and have no factual relationship to any issue in the proceeding. Since any changes in the land have occurred pursuant to identified permits and authorizations, the allegations are simply false and/or intentionally misleading. It is not a basis for an award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105 that an irrelevant photograph was included in a petition for hearing. Moreover, the aerial photograph in McClash’s petition was relevant in this case because it showed the physical conditions of Cargor’s property. In the petition, McClash states that Manatee County issued a stop work order on November 16, 2016, for construction activities commenced on Cargor’s property without a County- approved erosion control plan. This allegation also pertained to physical changes to the property. All evidence about physical changes was relevant in determining whether Cargor was entitled to renewal of the FDOW. Fees Cargor claims fees based on 48.4 hours of attorney time (Edward Vogler) at an hourly rate of $410, and 3.6 hours of attorney time (Kimberly Ashton) at an hourly rate of $385, for a total of $21,230.00. The fees Cargor is seeking include the hours spent on legal issues raised by Cargor that were rejected by the Administrative Law Judge. These fees amount to at least $1,025. See Cargor Exhibit 1, Invoice entries for February 20, 2017. Cargor’s attorney testified that the fees are reasonable. Cargor did not call an expert witness to corroborate the reasonableness of the hourly rate and the reasonableness of the hours expended.
