Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based on the evidence presented and relate both to Fairfield's MSSW and CUP applications: Fort George Island is an approximately 900 acre island located northeast of the City of Jacksonville in Duval County, Florida. It is bounded to the north and east by the Fort George River, to the west by an extensive salt marsh, and to the south by Batten Island and the St. Johns River. The island is separated from the Atlantic Ocean by Little Talbot Island. There are presently approximately 16 homes on Fort George Island, an existing 18-hole golf course with clubhouse, the Kingsley Plantation State Park in the north and the Rollins site surface waters on the northern two-thirds of the island are Class II waters, while the waters to the south are Class III. The following factors concerning Fort George Island are of ecological significance: Existence of a large area of coastal hammock; Value of the coastal hammock for scientific research and as a food source for migrating song birds; Fact that the Island is located in an aquatic preserve; Salt marshes on the western side of the Island which are a food source for wading birds; State lands on the Island which are utilized as wildlife and plant preserve, as well as for historical purposes; Estuaries on the western side of the Island which function as primary nursery areas for commercial and sport fishery species, as well as for shrimp, oysters and crabs; Existence of commercial oyster leases on the western side of the Island; and Public use of the Island's shoreline for oystering and clamming. Fairfield owns approximately 757.5 acres on Fort George Island which it proposes to develop into a "planned unit development" of 1,343 dwelling units, a 27 hole golf course, and approximately 80,000 square feet of commercial development. The approximate density of the development will be 1.8 units per acre. Approximately 80% of Fairfield's property is currently forested, and after development approximately 35% will remain undisturbed habitat. The City of Jacksonville approved the "planned unit development" on January 10, 1983. Because the Department of Community Affairs had determined on August 11, 1982, that this development was a "development of regional impact," Fairfield submitted an Application for Development Approval to the Department, the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council, and the City of Jacksonville, which subsequently approved the proposed development in an Amended Development Order. On January 25, 1984, the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission approved the Amended Development Order (ADO). In addition to approving the development of maximum of 1,343 units, 80,000 square feet of commercial area, two 18 hole golf courses (one already in existence), and a marina with not more than 50 slips, the ADO required Fairfield to conduct a 12 month study and prepare a Master Resource Management Plan prior to development. Specifically, Fairfield was required to demonstrate that there is a sufficient supply of potable ground water to serve the entire development without adverse effects on the Floridan Aquifer and other existing legal users; establish the ambient conditions of the water surrounding Fort George Island and the ambient climatic conditions of the Island and Rollins Sanctuary through a 12 month monitoring program; identify all endangered, threatened, unique, rare, notable and "species of special concern" and determine their habitat requirements; address surface water quality and quantity, terrestrial and wetlands biology, and ground water quality and quantity for the entire project; and submit a revised Master Land Use Plan, consistent with the Master Resource Management Plan, to the City of Jacksonville's Planning Commission for its approval. Further, the ADO required Fairfield to demonstrate that it could retain the 100 year, 24-hour storm (calculated to be 11.04 inches of rain in 24 hours), and prevent degradation of the established ambient conditions of the waters surrounding Fort George. Finally, the ADO required Fairfield to submit its Master Resource Management Plan to the City, Regional Planning Council, Department of Community Affairs, Department of Environmental Regulation, Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the District, for their, review, comment, and in some cases approval. After review and comment by these agencies, the City of Jacksonville Planning Commission approved the Master Resource Management Plan on January 29, 1986, from which no appeal was taken. Case Number 85-3537 (MSSW) The following findings of fact are based upon the stipulation of the parties and relate to Fairfield's MSSW application: The District, a special taxing district and agency, created by Chapter 373, is charged with the statutory responsibility of the administration and enforcement of permitting programs pursuant to Sections 373.413 and 373.416, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40C-4, Florida Administrative Code. The District is the agency involved in this proceeding. The District has assigned Fairfield's conceptual MSSW permit application the permit number 4-031-002AC. Fairfield is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Florida. Its address is 3520 Piedmont Road, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30305. The proposed MSSW will serve Fairfield's development on Fort George Island, located in Duval County at Section 34, Township 15, Range 29 East. Petitioner Friends of Fort George, Inc., is a not-for- profit Florida Corporation, whose principal office for the transaction of business is located at 11251 Fort George Road, East, Jacksonville, Florida 32226. Petitioner in Intervention Southeastern Fisheries Association is a Florida not-for profit corporation whose address is 312 East Georgia Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Petitioner in Intervention Logan Diving, Inc., is a Florida corporation whose address is 5731 St. Augustine Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. Petitioners in Intervention Florida Audubon Society and Duval Audubon Society are not-for-profit Florida corporations whose principal offices for the transaction of business are located at 1101 Audubon Way, Maitland, Florida 32751 and 2°65 Forest Circle, Jacksonville, Florida 32217. Individual Petitioners William E. Arnold, Jr., William M. Bliss, Doris B. Chappelle, Leo E. Chappelle, Mr. & Mrs. Rhodes Gay, Dr. & Mrs. William J. Knauer, Jr., Camillus S. Lengle, Jr., and Mr. & Mrs. J. W. Lucas are natural persons and citizens of the State of Florida who are owners of real property on Fort George Island. On August 27, 1985, the District gave Notice of its intent to deny MSSW application No. 4-031-002AC. On September 23, 1985, the District determined to recommend issuance of MSSW Application No. 4-031-002AC, as then modified, with conditions. Fairfield had originally contemplated in both its original Master Resource Management Plan (MRMP) and the referenced MSSW application that its proposed development for Fort George Island would have a 36-hole golf course facility. Fairfield subsequently reduced its proposed golf course facility from 36 holes to 27 holes. The City of Jacksonville's Planning Commission approved the MRMP with conditions, including the condition that the golf course be reduced, on January 29, 1986. Because of the reduction in size of Fairfield's proposed golf course facility from 36 to 27 holes Fairfield's total requirements for water for irrigation were reduced. By pleading dated April 7, 1986, Fairfield moved to amend its conceptual MSSW approval application. On April 10, 1986, the motion was granted pursuant to Stipulation of all the parties. The motion was granted by written Order of the Hearing Officer on April 17, 1986. The Petitioners' original Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings was timely filed within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the District's proposed agency action of September 23, 1985. A number of the members of Friends of Fort George, Inc. own real property on Fort George Island, reside on the Island, and engage in recreational activities on the Island and its adjacent waters and environs. The subject matter of the proposed agency action challenged by Petitioners and Intervenors concerns the natural resources on Fort George Island. Protection of this resource falls within-the general purpose and objectives of Friends of Fort George, Inc., namely, the preservation, conservation, and restoration of Fort George Island and surrounding environs. The relief requested in this proceeding by Petitioners and Intervenors is denial of the conceptual management and storage of surface waters permit. The water storage ponds proposed in the project will intersect with the surficial aquifer on Fort George Island. Petitioners, Friends of Fort George, Inc. and Intervenors, Florida Audubon Society and Duval Audubon Society have standing pursuant to Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, to bring this action. During the hearing, the parties stipulated that Logan Diving, Inc., has standing in this proceeding since it is the holder of oyster and clam harvesting leases from the Department of Natural Resources for beds located in Class II waters adjacent to Fort George Island and it derives substantial income from harvesting of these beds. Closure or reclassification of these waters to limit or preclude shellfish harvesting would impair the value of Logan Diving's shellfish leases, or render them worthless. The following findings of fact relating to Fairfield's MSSW application are based upon the evidence presented, including the demeanor and credibility of witnesses who testified: Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc., established at the hearing that it is a not-for-profit incorporated association of seafood producers, packers, canners, processors, wholesalers, retailers and others substantially involved in the seafood and fishing industries. Based upon the testimony of Robert P. Jones, 200 to 250 of the Association's 350 members shrimp in waters in the vicinity of Fort George Island, 26 of its members are residents of Duval or Massau Counties and 6 are residents of Fort George Island. Thus, a significant number of the Association's members harvest and transport seafood from the waters in the area of Fort George Island, and others also pack and process seafood from these waters. They would be substantially affected if the quality of these waters was degraded, or if the waters were closed to shellfish harvesting as a result of destruction to the nursery areas or reduction in quality or quantity of fish or shellfish which are harvested in these waters, or which utilize these waters as nursery areas. The objectives and purposes of the Association include promoting the general welfare of the fisheries industry and enhancing its economic progress. In contrast, the Florida Wildlife Federation was allowed to participate in this hearing but failed to offer any evidence in support of its verified Petition at the hearing. Fairfield's MSSW application is for conceptual approval, pursuant to District rule, and if conceptual approval is obtained Fairfield will then have to re-apply for construction, operation and maintenance MSSW permits. Although this is an application for conceptual approval, the documentation and information submitted by Fairfield to the District in support of its application is more thorough and complete than almost any other application for conceptual approval received by the District, and is actually superior to the documentation and information received from most applicants for construction permits. According to District staff, more sampling and testing results are presented in this conceptual application than they ever get. After initial review of its MSSW application by District staff following submission on January 5, 1984, Fairfield received a request for additional information. In responding to this request, Fairfield developed a plan of study which was approved by District staff and which focused on the water supply potential of the surficial aquifer, and the ability of a stormwater management and control system to retain stormwater on-site in compliance with the ADO and the District's permitting rules. Fairfield's study was comprehensive, and was completed in a very competent, professional manner. It included the collection of data through soil borings, installation of monitoring wells, conducting permeability and percolation tests, collecting rainfall data' and sampling of water quality. A water budget model was developed, and approved by the District, to compare existing conditions to proposed developed conditions and to specifically determine the water supply potential of the surficial aquifer, assess the availability of water for irrigation after development, assess changes in recharge to the surficial aquifer after development, and generally to determine how the development would impact the existing hyrologic cycle on the Island. Considering all of the evidence presented, it is specifically found that Fairfield utilized correct and appropriate input parameters in its water budget model to determine that currently 17.5 inches per year of freshwater is flowing from the Island to the surrounding estuary under average annual rainfall conditions, and after development approximately 16 inches per year of freshwater will flow from the Island to the estuary--less than a 10% change in ground- water flowing to the estuary. Therefore, the subject development will not adversely impact the overall water balance on Fort George Island. Utilizing the water budget model, under developed conditions it is shown that in a one-in-ten dry year there will be slightly more fresh water flow from the Island, and in a one-in-ten wet year there will be slightly less freshwater flow to the estuary than currently exists. This further demonstrates that overall water balance will be maintained. Total recharge will be greater post-development in average, wet and dry years. Fairfield's stormwater management system consists of a series of golf course fairway retention areas, and also includes four ponds in the north of the island which are interconnected, and one in the south, into which storm water will flow. The retention ponds comprise an area of approximately 32 acres. The fairway retention areas maximize percolation or infiltration, and water that remains to enter these ponds will be used for golf course irrigation through pumping. Generally, 95% of golf course need will be met by such pumping from the ponds, with the remaining need being met by withdrawals from the Floridan Aquifer. Under dry conditions, the need to withdraw from the Floridan Aquifer will be greater and could approach 49% of golf course irrigation requirements. The fairway retention areas and the five storage ponds comprise an on-line treatment system which will retain the first one-half inch of runoff, as well as additional runoff. Fairfield's on-line system is equivalent to an off-line system required by Rule Chapter 40C-42, Florida Administrative Code, for discharges to Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) such as those that surround Fort George Island. Thus, the "first flush" containing a higher level of pollutants will be received by the retention areas and ponds in this on-line system and will primarily be removed through percolation in the retention areas. Pollutants should not be discharged into the estuaries, even in emergencies or when conditions exceed design capacity. Pond retention time will be approximately two months and surficial runoff will account for 5%-10% of the water in the ponds, with the rest coming from ground-water in-flow. Fairfield's storm water management system is operational and maintainable. It will be able to retain the 100 year, 24 hour storm event and otherwise meet the District's requirement that post-development discharge not exceed pre- development peak discharge. Surface discharges from the system will occur infrequently, perhaps every 80 years. Currently there is about one-half inch of direct surface runoff annually. Since surface runoff is a primary source of pollutant transport, the elimination of this runoff will have a beneficial effect on the estuary. The system will not degrade the quality of surrounding estuaries or the OFW since discharges to the estuaries will not occur from the ponds except under extreme conditions, and also because of the high level of treatment which will be provided by the ponds. Reasonable assurance has been given that water in the ponds will meet Class III standards, as well as the "free from" standards in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, in the immediate future. The proposed ponds will be an improvement over existing borrow pits and bogs on the Island which have drastic side slopes and very long residence times, such as the Osmunda Bog, and will be a better habitat for fish and drinking water source for wildlife than the existing pits. It will also result in an improvement to Blue Pond, with better vegetation and habitat than currently exists, and with wildlife access being insured through preservation areas. A recognized and accepted ground-water flow model was used by Fairfield, and was approved by the District for use in this situation. The surficial aquifer system was correctly modeled as a single layer unit. Clay which underlies the Island is not a significant feature since, at minus 18 feet mean sea level, it is well into the saturated zone of the surficial aquifer and well below the surface water table, and since water levels actually observed in test wells could not be predicted when the top of the clay layer was used in the model as the bottom of the surficial aquifer. When the depth of the surficial aquifer was set at the top of the Hawthorne layer, the model accurately predicted water levels, as correlated against actual measured levels. Surface waters around Fort George Island have been classified as OFW since 1979. No significant development has taken place on the Island since 1979, and therefore ambient water conditions in 1978 and 1979 could reasonably be expected to have been what they are today. The stormwater management system will create a ground- water divide around the retention ponds. Any water falling inside the divide will flow toward the ponds; water falling outside the divide will percolate to the water table and then flow to the estuary. While under existing conditions nutrient pollutants that reach the water table simply flow to the estuary, after development half of the water falling on the golf course will be inside the divide and will therefore flow to the ponds. Therefore, after development there will be less nutrients and other pollutants reaching the estuary than under current conditions. Fairfield's stormwater management system is designed in a manner to ensure that the first 1 1/2 inches of rainfall will be retained or detained from an OFW. In fact, it appears that the system will actually retain runoff from the first 11 inches of rainfall. After analyzing data for metals, nutrients and coliform bacteria, it is found that the ambient water quality of the estuary will not be degraded by Fairfield's proposed development, and in fact there will actually be a net improvement in the quality of water reaching it from the Island. As a result of pollutant removal through filtration, sedimentation, absorption, precipitation, biological activity and dilution, it can reasonably be expected that ground-water seepage from the fairways and ponds to the OFW will meet primary and secondary drinking water standards, as well as Class II standards, and will not degrade the ambient water quality of the estuary. Infrequent surface discharges to the estuary also will not violate Class III standards. Total loading of nutrients to the OFW under developed conditions will be less than under existing conditions, and coliforms reaching the OFW via ground- water will be eliminated. Freshwater surface flow from the developed areas of the Island to the sloughs on the western side of the Island will be virtually eliminated. This elimination will not be detrimental to either salinities or particulate flows to these sloughs. Since there is an average of 50 inches of rainfall on the estuary per year, as opposed to less than 1/2 inch of freshwater runoff, and since the tidal flow is the forcing function in the estuary and not fresh surface water runoff, the salinity levels in the estuary will be largely unchanged. Particulate material will continue to be readily available to the sloughs from the marshlands, and from perimeter buffers which will be preserved by Fairfield around the Island. An undeveloped, preserved buffer zone is retained between the project and the surrounding waters as well as Rollins Sanctuary. This buffer zone is not intruded upon by the retention ponds contouring or berms associated with the development. In addition to the buffer zone, an undisturbed area will also be retained in the development, and the total acreage of the buffer and undisturbed areas will be 226 acres. The buffer and undisturbed areas will be more than adequate to protect the rare, notable, endangered or threatened plant and wildlife species identified on the Island when these areas are considered in relation to Rollins Sanctuary and other properties on the Island in state ownership. There will also be no construction activity in the saltmarsh off the western side of the Island. Extensive surveys conducted by Fairfield identified 26 species of plants and 16 species of wildlife on the Island. The habitat for all but one wildlife species, the gopher tortoise, is the saltmarsh to the west of the Island which will be undisturbed. Two national champion trees were identified and will be preserved. There will be no adverse impacts on notable plants in Rollins Sanctuary or other preservation areas since a 30 meter buffer is provided on the northern boundary of the Sanctuary and no development at all will take place to the west! of the Sanctuary. Woodstorks, the only endangered species identified in the survey, have been observed resting in trees at the western side of the Island in the saltmarsh. They are not nesting on Fort George Island, but return to the D-Dot Ranch south of Jacksonville every night to nest. The western area of the Island will remain undisturbed habitat in a buffer area from 250 to 450 feet wide, as will the southwestern portion of the Island. Woodstorks appear to be using the tidal sloughs for feeding, and development should have no adverse impact on these sloughs. A heron and egret rookery exists on the northern side of the Island, primarily off of Fairfield's property. Approximately 20 nesting pairs of great blue herons and great egrets use this rookery, which appears to be a satellite of regional rookeries. These are not notable species, but Fairfield will provide up to a 600 foot buffer. The gopher tortoise is the only notable terrestrial species on the Island and is a "species of special concern." The undisturbed natural habitat of a major concentration of gopher tortoise on Fairfield's property will be preserved. While the habitat for non-notable species such as bobcat, grey fox, owls and songbirds will be reduced, they will not be extirpated. Significant archaeological sites on Fairfield's property will be preserved and protected, including Mission San Juan del Puerto, the Grave Robbers Mound, the Sugar Mill site, and the Crypt site. If additional sites are found during development, a mitigation plan will be developed for approval by the State Division of Archives, with an evaluation by a professional archaeologist. Indian middens, or trash piles, have been deemed insignificant and will not be preserved. Surface water table draw-downs which will result from Fairfield's system due to pumping from the surficial aquifer will have no adverse impact on either wildlife or plant life on the Island. Such draw-downs will be limited and localized primarily around the ponds. In fact, the water table on the western side of the Island may increase slightly. The draw-down within Rollins Sanctuary or at Rollins Creek will be less than one foot and therefore should not have any adverse impact. Rollins Creek is approximately five feet wide. A fifty foot buffer around the Creek is provided. Only EPA approved chemicals will be used for weed control associated with the ponds, and aeration will be used to assist the production of oxygen in the ponds. Nutrients, nitrates and phosphorous, will be continually analyzed so that immediate corrective action in fertilizer application can be taken if necessary. Fairfield will utilize an integrated pest management program under a plan which must be approved by the District and which will actually reduce the need for chemical pesticides. Only EPA approved pesticides will be used. As for fertilizers, Fairfield will apply fertilizers more frequently, but in lesser amounts, than on the existing golf course. This ensures a better uptake of nitrates and phosphates, thereby reducing unabsorbed nutrients that might flow to the ponds or estuary. A full-time resource manager will be employed to ensure proper operation of the entire stormwater management system. Once the system is in place, Fairfield will conduct a long-term monitoring program of the water quality in the MWBZ, surficial aquifer, the ponds, and any surface water discharges to ensure permit compliance and also to provide a data base for further activities. Such a data base will represent a positive public benefit. Additional beneficial results of the project, after construction permits are obtained, include stabilization of the northern shoreline of the Island which has had notable marshland erosion, and re-aligning a road on the western side of in the Island to eliminate a point where it crosses Big Slough and thereby open the Slough up to additional sheetflow. Middle and Northern Sloughs will be preserved. Mitigation will be required for any disturbance of a small wetland area on the west side of the Island which is approximately 3/4 of an acre in size. Eliminating marsh erosion, and removing vehicle traffic and flow restrictions in the area of Big Slough are clearly in the public interest, as is the preservation of other wetland areas. The District staff originally recommended that Fairfield's MSSW application be denied but after modifications to the application were made, the District staff has recommended approval with conditions to ensure generally that Fairfield: Monitors water quality in the five ponds in accordance with a plan approved by the District, as well as the quantity and quality of all surface water discharges. Monitors water levels in surficial aquifer wells and reports such data to the District Recalibrates its surficial aquifer and water budget models every five years using the actual monitoring data it has collected and reported to the District in the preceding years, and if such recalibration indicates more than a 50% increase in the volume or frequency of surface water discharges, the stormwater management system must be altered, with District approval, to prevent such increases Submits a pesticide management plan for District approval. Submits a mitigation plan for District approval, at the time of application for construction permits, that will mitigate for any loss to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species associated with project development in the area of the tidal sloughs on the west coast of the Island. A total of fourteen specific conditions which the District staff recommends be placed on the conceptual approval of the MSSW permit are contained in the Management and Storage of Surface Waters Summary Sheet, dated May 1986, which is hereby incorporated by reference and found to be reasonable in its entirety. Case Number 85-3596 (CUP) The following findings of fact are based upon the stipulation of the parties and relate to Fairfield's CUP application: The District, a special taxing district and agency, created by Chapter 373, is charged with the statutory responsibility for the administration and enforcement of permitting programs pursuant to Sections 373.219 and 373.223, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code. The District is the agency involved in this proceeding. The District has assigned Fairfield's CUP application the permit number 2-031-0021AN. Findings of Fact 10, 11, 14 and 15 which are set forth above are hereby readopted and incorporated herein. On December 1, 1983, Fairfield, through its then-agent George Register, III, submitted to the District the subject CUP application. The application was assigned No. 2-031-0021AN. On August 23, 1985, the District gave notice of its intent to deny CUP application No. 2-031-0021AN. On September 23, 1985, the District determined to recommend issuance of CUP application No. 2-031-0021AN, as then modified, with conditions. Fairfield had originally contemplated in both its original Master Resource Management Plan (MRMP) and the referenced CUP application that its proposed development for Fort George Island would have a 36-hole golf course facility. Fairfield subsequently reduced its proposed golf course facility from 36 holes to 27 holes. The City of Jacksonville's Planning Commission approved the MRMP with conditions, including the condition that the golf course be reduced, on January 29, 1986. Because of the reduction in size of Fairfield's proposed golf course facility form 36 to 27 holes, Fairfield's total requirements for irrigation water were reduced. By pleading dated February 28, 1986, Fairfield moved to amend its application. The motion was granted by the Hearing Officer on March 11, 1986. In light of this amended application, the District issued a revised "Consumptive Uses of Water Summary Sheet," dated March-24, 1986, to reflect this amended request and to recommend issuance of the CUP. The Petitioners' original Petition For Formal Administrative Proceedings was timely filed within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the District's proposed agency action of September 23, 1985. A number of the members of Friends of Fort George, Inc. own real property on Fort George Island, reside on the Island, and possess drinking water wells on the Island and engage in recreational activities on the Island and its adjacent waters and environs. The subject matter of the proposed agency action challenged by Petitioners and Intervenors concerns the water resources on Fort George Island, including its drinking water supply. Protection of this resource falls within the general purpose and objectives of Friends of Fort George, Inc., namely, the preservation, conservation and restoration of Fort George Island and surrounding environs. The relief requested in this proceeding by Petitioner and Intervenor is denial of the proposed consumptive use permit. The water storage ponds proposed in the project will intersect with the surficial aquifer on Fort George Island. The residential value of Petitioners' property on Fort George Island would decrease if the property had absolutely no access to potable water. Petitioners and Intervenors have standing pursuant to Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, to bring this action. The following findings of fact relating to Fairfield's CUP application are based upon the evidence presented, including the demeanor and credibility of witnesses who testified: Following review of Fairfield's CUP application, District staff requested additional information on January 11, 1984; Fairfield developed a plan of study to supply the requested additional information, and the plan of study was approved by District staff. The plan of study sought to find out the nature and characteristics of an anomaly in the northeastern part of the Island, and also to determine if Fairfield's proposed usage would have any affect on existing legal users. As part of the study, Fairfield conducted a well inventory and survey, water quality survey, water level measurements, and vertical investigations. The study also examined three alternatives to obtaining water from the various water bearing zones under Fort George Island, including drilling a test well (TP-2) into the Middle Water Bearing Zone after obtaining appropriate permits. The Floridan Aquifer below Fort George Island consists of three zones--The Upper Water Bearing Zone (UWBZ), Middle Water Bearing Zone (MWBZ) and Lower Water Bearing Zone (LWBZ). The bottom of the Hawthorne formation separating the surficial and Floridan aquifers occurs at about 400 feet below mean sea level. The UWBZ exists from of depth of approximately 520 feet to 1000 feet. Below the UWBZ is an upper semiconfining zone from a depth of approximately 1000 to 1200 feet. The MWBZ is generally 100 feet thick and exists from a depth of approximately 1200 to 1700 feet, below which is a lower semiconfining zone from a depth of approximately 1700 to 2000 feet. The MWBZ is a single water producing zone with interconnected channels or flow zones. The LWBZ exists from a depth of approximately 2000 to 2100 feet, below which is a lower confining unit. The confining zones are saturated with water but are less permeable than any of the water bearing zones. Regional ground-water flow in the Floridan Aquifer at Fort George Island is from the west to the east, northeast and southeast. Water quality to a depth of approximately 1900 feet is generally good, with chloride concentrations of less than 50 milligrams per liter (mgl). In the UWBZ chloride concentrations are generally 10-15 mgl. However, in the north eastern part of the Island chloride concentrations are approximately ten times higher, although still considered potable, due to an anomaly which exists in this area with a radius of approximately 1000 feet, and which allows the flow of water directly from the LWBZ to theMWBZ and LWBZ. While the potentiometric surface or pressure for most of the Island is 39 feet, at the anomaly it is 43 feet above mean sea level. The anomaly was caused either by a sinkhole or fault and acts as a localized conduit or coins source of lower quality water from the LWBZ to the UWBZ. No other point sources of lower quality water exist on the island. The Hawthorne formation was found to exist approximately fifty feet deeper in the area of the anomaly than on the rest of the Island. Existing users on Fort George Island draw water from the UWBZ. Fairfield proposes to draw its water from the MWBZ at a rate of 101.11 million gallons per year in an average year, and 181.04 million gallons per year in a 1 in 10 dry year, and will be the only user of water from the MWBZ on the Island. Household use consumption is projected to be 129.3 gallons per capita which is below the District average of 150 gallons per capita. Based upon pump tests already conducted by Fairfield, the MWBZ will produce more than enough water to meet Fairfield's needs for its project and such pumping will have no adverse impact on the UWBZ or existing users. Pumping from the MWBZ will also have no adverse impact on the MWBZ. Specifically, salt water intrusion from the surrounding estuary or from the tWBZ to the MWBZ will not significantly increase, chloride levels will not increase and potentiometric levels will not decrease in the MWBZ due to this pumping. The MWBZ will produce an adequate Supply of potable water for 15 to 30 years. Fairfield does propose to use well P-1 in the UWBZ in emergency situations but such usage will have no adverse impact on the quality of the UWBZ or its existing users. Use of the MWBZ will be minimized by maximum utilization of the surface water management system ponds for irrigation needs. Well TP-2 is approximately a mile from the anomaly in a south-southwesterly direction. It was constructed by Fairfield, after obtaining necessary permits, with casing to a depth of 771 feet all the way through the UWBZ and into the underlying confining bed. Pump tests were conducted on the MWBZ using TP-2, which is the only well on the Island in the MWBZ. No separate monitoring well in the MWBZ was required by the District, and none was utilized by Fairfield because the flow off 2,000 gallons per minute from TP-2 was so strong that a separate monitoring well was not necessary. When TP-2 was pumped, there was no measurable change in nearby UWBZ wells. This confirms that the MWBZ is hydrologically separate from the UWBZ, other than at the anomaly, and pumping from one will not affect wells in the other. In response to a request from the District, Fairfield utilized conservative factors in applying a mathematical model to determine the effects of its proposed pumping on the Floridan Aquifer. Using the USGS contaminant transport model, which is professionally accepted and appropriate for use in this case, and after proper calibration to reproduced observed conditions, it was determined that chloride concentrations in the MWBZ will not be adversely affected, nor will potentiometric surfaces of the UWBZ or MWBZ when pumping is conducted from TP-2 in the MWBZ over a thirty year period. At most, pumping from TP-2 could result in a slight increase of flow from the anomaly into the MWBZ, with a minimal increase in chloride concentrations. Fairfield has agreed to install a monitoring well in the MWBZ and to monitor several wells in the UWBZ in order to constantly test and monitor chloride levels. Currently chloride levels in the MWBZ are 25 mgl and the limit for potable water is 250 mgl. The monitoring well will be approximately 550 feet northeast of well TP-2, and will detect any changes in chloride levels with sufficient lead time for Fairfield to initiate action to drill another well into the MWBZ further from the chloride source. It is estimated that such lead time could reasonably be as much as ten years. Even without Fairfield's pumping from the MWBZ, water quality in the UWBZ would be expected to degrade, as it has historically, as a result of regional pumping which has caused a regional decline in water quality and 37 SO as a result of flow from the anomaly. Existing users may actually benefit from Fairfield's pumping from the MWBZ and the decline in the quality of the UWBZ may be slowed due to Fairfield's elimination of golf course irrigation which currently comes from the UMBZ at a rate of approximately 175,000 gallons per day, accounting for approximately 90% of all current water usage on the Island. Pumping from the Floridan Aquifer will be conducted to supplement irrigation from the stormwater management system. Fairfield will use up to 580,000 gallons per day for golf course irrigation in dry years. However, even in a dry year the primary source for golf course irrigation will still be from the stormwater management system. In an average year, approximately 95% of irrigation needs will be met by the surface water management system ponds. In a wet year there should be no need to pump from the Aquifer. The District staff originally recommended denial of Fairfield's CUP application when it was for a 36 hole golf course, anad for withdrawal of potable water from the UWBZ with only golf course irrigation being from the MWBZ. Fairfield has modified its application and now proposes a 27 golf course with all water needs coming from the MWBZ, except in an emergency when well P-1 in the UWBZ may be used. The District staff has now recommended approval, with a total of twenty conditions contained in the "Consumptive Uses of Water Summary Sheet," which are hereby incorporated by reference and which ensure generally that Fairfield: Mitigates any adverse impact caused by withdrawals permitted herein on existing legal uses of water; the District may curtail any withdrawal if there are adverse impacts on existing legal users. Mitigates any adverse impacts caused by withdrawals permitted herein on existing adjacent land uses; the District may curtail any withdrawal if there are adverse impacts on existing adjacent land uses. Must reapply for another CUP after seven years from issuance. Begins irrigating the existing 18 hole golf course from the MWBZ by March 1, 1987, with existing UWBZ irrigation wells only to be used thereafter for fire protection. Institutes a sampling program for existing wells in the UWBZ and MWBZ. Supplies all potable and supplemental irrigation requirements from the MWBZ, and keeps monthly records of such withdrawals. Drills and maintains a monitoring well in the MWBZ approximately 550 feet northeast of its MWBZ potable and supplemental irrigation well, and provides long term water quality samples to the District from the monitoring well. The District staff's recommended conditions are found to be reasonable in their entirety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the St. John's River Water Management District issue to Fairfield Communities, Inc., conceptual approval of MSSW permit number 4- 031-002AC with conditions set forth in the District's Management and Storage of Surface Waters Summary Sheet, dated May 1986, and also issue to Fairfield Communities, Inc., CUP number 2-031- 3021AN with conditions set forth in the District's Consumptive Uses of Water Summary Sheet. Further, it is recommended that the Florida Wildlife Federation be dismissed as a party in this proceeding. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32078-1429 Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Thomas G. Pelham, Esquire Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, FL 32302-3300 Kathryn L. Mennella, Esquire Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32087-1429 Charles Lee Senior Vice President Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, FL 32751 Jeffrey R. Lugwig, Esquire One Independent Square Jacksonville, FL 32276 Stephen O'Hara, Jr., Esquire 1500 American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, FL 32202 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioners' and Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9-27, 58-73. 2-7. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 36, 42. 9-10. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary 11. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 4, 77, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary 12-24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary or not based on competent substantial evidence. 25-27. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary 28-39. Adopted and rejected in Finding of Fact 76, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary 40-45. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25, 77, 78 and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Finding of Fact 76. Rejected as irrelevant. 48-50. Rejected in Findings of Fact 77, 78 and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 51-52. Rejected as unnecessary. 53. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 54-55. Rejected in Findings of Fact 77, 78. 56. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. 57-63. Rejected in Finding of Fact 79 and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 64-66. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 67-75. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 76-79. Rejected in Finding of Fact 79, and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 80-83 Rejected in Finding of Fact 75, and otherwise irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Finding of Fact 78 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 86-87. Rejected in Finding of Fact 75. 88-107. Adopted and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 75, 78, and otherwise irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. 108. Rejected in Finding of Fact 79. 109-111. Rejected in Findings of Fact 76, 80. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 114-116. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. 117-120. Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. 121-136. Rejected in Finding of Fact 37 and otherwise unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 139-141. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 142-144. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 145-147. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Findings of Fact 36, 37. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence 151-161. Rejected as unnecessary, cumulative and not based on competent substantial evidence. 162-164. Rejected in Finding of Fact 37 and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 165-169. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 170. Rejected in Findings of Fact 34, 39, 41. 171-173. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 174-177. Rejected in Findings of Fact 36, 37. 178-179. Rejected in Findings of Fact 50, 51. 180. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 181-186. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence and otherwise unnecessary. 187-189. Rejected in Finding of Fact 32, and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 190-193. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 194-195. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 196. Rejected as unnecessary. 197-200. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 201-205. Rejected in Findings of Fact 32, 33 and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 206-210. Rejected in Findings of Fact 32, 33, 36, 37. 211-268. Rejected in Findings of Fact 35, 36, 39-41, 52-54 and otherwise unnecessary and contrary to competent substantial evidence. 269-278. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 3, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 279-297. Rejected in Findings of Fact 32, 33, 35, 36, 41, 42 and otherwise as unnecessary. 298. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 299-300. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Finding of Fact 44. Adopted and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 45-47. 304-305. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 306-312. Rejected in Findings of Fact 44-48 and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Findings of Fact 43, 45. Rejected in Finding of Fact 48. 315-321. Rejected as unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. 322-323. Adopted and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 50. 324. Rejected as unnecessary. 325-329. Adopted and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 28. 330. Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on Respondent Fairfield Communities' Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 58. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 59. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 59. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 59. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 59. Rejected as unnecessary based on Finding of Fact 28 Adopted in Findings of Fact 30, 60. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16, 17, 61, 62. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 6, 18, 19 Adopted in Findings of Fact 20, 65. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted 1n Findings of Fact 21, 67. Adopted and rejected in Finding of Fact 28 Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 20-22. Adopted in Finding of Fact S. 23-24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 77, 81. 28-30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 74. Adopted in Finding of Fact 75. Adopted in Findings of Fact 75, 76 Adopted in Finding of Fact 76. Adopted 1n Findings of Fact 75, 76. Rejected as unnecessary. 36-37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 75. 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 77, but otherwise rejected 39-40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 76 evidence. 41-43. Adopted in Findings of Fact 76-80, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 44-47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 74 48-50. Adopted in Finding of Fact 78 51-55 Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 77, 80. Adopted in Findings of Fact 77, 83. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Adopted in Findings of Fact 78, 79. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. 62-63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. 64-65. Adopted in Finding of Fact 77 Adopted in Findings of Fact 4; 77. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 69-70. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative 71-72. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 73-75. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31 76-84. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31, 32, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary 85-88. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. 89-92. Adopted in Findings of Fact 36, 37, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary Adopted in Finding of Fact 43 Adopted in Finding of Fact 36 Adopted in Findings of Fact 4i, 42 Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 38 Adopted in Findings of Fact 41, 42. 101-102. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39 Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. 105-105. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 110-115. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42 116-117. Adopted in Findings of Fact 36, 42, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 118-121. Adopted in Finding of Fact 50, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary 122. Rejected as unnecessary, cumulative and inaccurate. 123-125. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. 128-131. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. 132-133. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. 134-135. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 136. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. 137-138. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. Adopted in Findings of Fact 52, 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 55. 144-148. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 149. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 43, 44, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 150-151. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. 154-155. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 48. 158-160. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49. Rulings on Respondent St. John's River Water Management District's Proposed Findings of Fact: (The District's proposal was not timely filed, and the District did not seek permission from the Hearing Officer for late filing. It also consists of serial, unnumbered paragraphs from pages 18 to 48 despite specific instruction of the Hearing Officer to the parties to number paragraphs in proposed findings in order to allow specific rulings to be made. Despite these failures, a ruling will be made on the District's proposals, after having consecutively numbered each unnumbered paragraph, since counsel for the District indicates counsel for Petitioners has no objection to this late-filing, and in fact no Motion to Strike has been filed on behalf of Petitioners.) Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 75. Adopted in Finding of Fact 76. Adopted in Findings of Fact 77, 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 60. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30.47 Adopted in Findings of Fact 16, 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 66, 83. Adopted in Finding of Fact 83. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 15-16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 17. Adopted in Findings of Fact 21, G7. 18-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 74. Adopted in Findings of Fact 74-76. Adopted in Finding of Fact 74. 24-26. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 77. 28-35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 76. 36-41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 78. 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. 43-45. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. Adopted in Finding of Fact 75. Adopted in Findings of Fact 75, 79. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. 49-50. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. 51-52. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. Adopted in Finding of Fact 77. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. 57-58. Adopted in Finding of Fact 77. Adopted in Findings of Fact 34, 82. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 77. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 78. 64-65. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 66. Adopted in Findings of Fact 34, 39. 67-72. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. 73-81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 82. Adopted in Findings of Fact 36, 42. 83-84. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 33. 85-87. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. 88-94. Rejected as unnecessary. 95. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. 96-98. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. Adopted in Findings of Fact 34-36. 101-102. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 38. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 36, 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Findings of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Rejected as unnecessary. 110-118. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Findings of Fact 52, 53, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 55. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. 124-128. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 36, 42, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 35, 42, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. 131-134. Adopted in Finding of Fact 50, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 135. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43. 136-138. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. 139. Adopted in Findings of Fact 36, 56. 140-141. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. 142. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. 143-144. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as cumulative, unnecessary and incorrect. Adopted and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. ================================================================ AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================ IN THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FRIENDS OF FORT GEORGE, INC., Petitioners, and LOGAN DIVING, INC., SOUTHEASTERN FISHERIES ASSOCIATIONS, INC., THE FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY, THE DOAH Case No. 85-3537 DUVAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, and THE (Management and Storage FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, of Surface Waters) SJRWMD Case No. 85-3948 Intervenors, v. FAIRFIELD COMMUNITIES, INC., and ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER, MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Respondents. / FRIENDS OF FORT GEORGE, INC., et al., Petitioners, and THE FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY DOAH Case No. 85-3596 and THE DUVAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, (Consumptive Use Permit) SJRWMD Case No. 85-394A Intervenors, v. FAIRFIELD COMMUNITIES, INC., and ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Respondents. /
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the applicants, William Guererro and Christina Bang, a/k/a Christina Guerrero (Applicants), are entitled to issuance of a Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and State Lands Approvals for various structures on the Applicants’ property at 58458 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Bernard Spinrad and Marian Spinrad are the owners of adjoining parcels of property with the addresses of 58418 and 58420 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. They acquired the property in December 2001. They recently completed construction of two residential structures on the properties. The structure at 58418 Overseas Highway is currently listed for sale. The structure at 58420 Overseas Highway is a vacation rental property. Neither structure is Petitioners’ permanent residence. The DEP is the state agency with the power and duty to regulate activities in waters of the state pursuant to chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The DEP also serves as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“Board of Trustees”) to review and act on activities on state sovereignty submerged lands under chapter 253. The Applicants, are the owners of adjoining parcels of property with the address of 58478 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida (the Property). They purchased the Property in June 2010. The structures that are the subject of the Permit are to be constructed near or waterward of the shoreline of the Property. The Property The Property is located on Grassy Key, an island in the middle Florida Keys, within limits of the city of Marathon, Monroe County, Florida. U.S. Highway 1 passes through Grassy Key. The Property -- as is that of Petitioners -- is situated between U.S. Highway 1 and the open waters of the Atlantic Ocean. In the early part of the 20th century, a portion of Grassy Key was platted as the Crains Subdivision. The properties owned by Applicants and Petitioners are within the Crains Subdivision. During the periods of time directly relevant hereto, the Property has been owned by Burgess Levine, who owned the property during the period prior to the October 2006, landfall of Hurricane Wilma until June 2010, and by Applicants, who have owned the Property since June, 2010. Grassy Key Grassy Key is three-miles long, and has 6800 feet of beaches, none of which are designated as critically eroded. The island fronts the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and the more protected waters of Florida Bay to the west. The waters along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline of Grassy Key in the area at issue are shallow, with an extremely flat bottom having a very gradual slope of approximately 1 to 30, meaning there is a one foot vertical change over 30 horizontal feet. The mean tide range at the Property is about 1.7 feet. Under normal conditions, the stretch of Grassy Key at issue is fairly characterized as a zero-wave energy shoreline. Waves break well offshore and there is negligible wave energy propagating beyond that point. What shoreline energy exists is produced by small tide currents and wind-shear on the water surface that moves water along the shoreline. The direction of the water movement is dependent on tides and wind direction, with the predominant direction being from north to south. Erosive and other significant changes to the shoreline of Grassy Key, including that stretch fronting the Property, are event driven, meaning when there is a coastal storm that causes a rise in the water level, substantially higher than the astronomical tide, waves can propagate onto the shoreline of Grassy Key. The wind and waves can come from virtually any direction depending on the storm. A storm of greater intensity will create higher energy-wave conditions. Although storm conditions may only occur over 1 to 3 percent of a given year, with the rest of the year having zero-wave energy, on average the coastline may be considered to be of moderate-wave energy. The beach sediment along the Grassy Key shoreline in all areas pertinent hereto consists of calcareous material, made up of the breakdown of corals and coralling algae, with a significant fraction of other detrital marine material. The upper beaches of Grassy Key, including that on the Property, generally consist of coarse, calcareous sand with a small fraction of calcareous silt-size particles. The inter-tidal areas along Grassy Key consist of predominantly fine calcareous sand, with a greater fraction of calcareous silt. Extending out into the nearshore area all along Grassy Key, including that fronting the properties owned by Petitioners and Applicants, the sediment becomes a very fine calcareous sand, with a greater fraction of the material being calcareous silts and clays, and with a substantial amount of organic mud of a marine origin, classified as Islamorada muck. Since at least the 1970s, one wading in the nearshore waters along Grassy Key could expect to sink into the surface muck to a depth of anywhere from six inches to two feet. The depth of muck becomes less as one moves further out and approaches the offshore Thalassia beds. Although some areas offer more resistance than others, it is routine to experience difficulty in walking and wading along the coast of Grassy Key because of the high percentage of clays and silts in the substrate. The band of muck narrows as one proceeds towards the northern stretches of Grassy Key, until one reaches the furthest areas to the northeast where the nearshore transitions to exposed rock and hard bottom. The surface muck that exists in the nearshore waters of Grassy Key, having a sizable component of decaying organic material, gives off an odor of hydrogen sulfide when disturbed that some find to be unpleasant. The odor is a naturally- occurring condition of the sediment, and is common in mucky areas all around the southern coasts of Florida. The suggestion that the shoreline in the vicinity of the Petitioners’ property, and that of Applicants, was a naturally occurring white, sandy beach is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent the shoreline at Petitioners’ property may have been temporarily altered by the overwash from Hurricane Wilma as discussed herein, Petitioners’ own post-Wilma man-made efforts at beach stabilization, or the redistribution of sediments occasioned by Hurricanes Isaac and Sandy in 2012, the evidence demonstrates the “mucky” condition described herein to be more consistent with the natural and long-standing conditions of Grassy Key. Thus, as Grassy Key exists in the present time, one may expect to encounter six inches to two feet of loose muck anywhere along the nearshore area. Close to shore of Grassy Key are scattered beds of Halodule, a species of seagrass that tends to emerge and grow in shallow waters. The growth of Halodule is influenced by the nature of the sediments, the salinity temperature, and clarity of the water. Storm events have a significant effect on its growth. Given its transient nature, Halodule may vary in any given area from nonexistent, to spotty, to well-established beds. As one moves further offshore, the Halodule transitions to large, continuous beds of Thalassia. Thalassia grows in deeper water, and is common to a depth of about 12 feet. Being deeper and less affected by storm energy, the line of the Thalassia beds off of Grassy Key has not substantially changed over time. As wind and waves come across the grass beds, and as tides ebb and flow, grass blades are cropped. The amount of grass varies seasonally to a degree. The cropped and dislodged seagrasses, along with other organic material entrained therein, are naturally carried by the tides and wind and stranded along the shoreline. The stranded material is known as wrack, and the line of stranded material is known as the wrack line. Grassy Key is well known for the large seagrass wracks that pile up on the shoreline. A wrack line is a normal and natural occurrence in marine environments like that of Grassy Key, and can be a good indicator of the upper edge of the water action at a particular time. The cropping and dislodging of seagrass is accentuated during major or minor storm events. During Hurricane Rita in 2005, a very large seagrass wrack was blown onto the shoreline of Grassy Key. It was subsequently blown back out to sea by the overwash from Hurricane Wilma. The decomposition of the seagrass and other organic materials creates a significant odor that is not uncommon. That odor of decomposing material is well-recognized as being associated with Grassy Key. Areas along the shoreline of Grassy Key have been used by sea turtles for nesting. However, the nature of the substrate in the area of the Property is not optimal for nesting. Generally, sea turtles require a nesting site with 15 to 20 inches of sand above the water table so as to allow them to dig a suitably deep and dry cavity for their eggs. The natural substrate along the section of Grassy Key at issue is coarser and more difficult to dig into, and does not have the depth of sand for the best chance of a successful nest. Despite the nature of the substrate, Petitioner testified as to her observation of turtle nests along her property in each year from 2006 through 2010. Since the SW Groin, the Mid-bulkhead, and the NE Groin were all in existence and functioning during that period, with work to the SW Groin having been completed by 2008, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that those structures have no effect on the success or failure of sea turtles to nest along the property. To the extent nesting has been disrupted since 2011, the most logical inference that can be drawn from the evidence is that such disruption is the result of the Mid-Jetty Extension, which is slated for removal under the terms of the Permit. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the structures and activities authorized by the Permit will have no adverse effect on sea turtles. Hurricane Wilma In October, 2005, Grassy Key was pounded by Hurricane Wilma. The storm passed to the north, and created a substantial storm surge that moved from west to east across Grassy Key. The storm surge created a “ridge and runnel” effect on the Atlantic facing shoreline, with the channelization of the storm tide flow creating erosion and gullies on upland shore-adjacent properties. The storm surge and flooding across Grassy Key caused substantial wash-outs of sand; transported a large volume of sandy, upland sediments into the nearshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean; and created washover “fans” of material along the shoreline of Grassy Key. The effects of the Hurricane Wilma storm surge manifested just north of the Property, became substantial at the Property, and continued south down the shoreline for a considerable distance. At the Property, sand was pushed from 50 to 100 feet waterward from the existing shoreline, and a substantial runout was created running parallel and north of the SW Jetty. The sand pushed into the water buried everything in its path, including seagrasses. In short, the post-Wilma shoreline from the Property south along Grassy Key was left in a completely disrupted state. The nearshore waters fronting the properties owned by Petitioners and Applicants were affected by the deposition of sandy, upland sediments, which temporarily created areas of substantially harder-packed sediment. Over time, as the shoreline equilibrated and the sandy sediment distributed through a broader area, more typical shoreline conditions returned. The photographic evidence demonstrates that the Mid- bulkhead and the SW jetty structures were impacted by the Hurricane Wilma storm surge. In addition, the sandy area between the mid-bulkhead and the SW jetty was pushed seaward from its previous location. The scars from Hurricane Wilma remain evident through the most recent aerial photographs received in evidence. It is visually apparent that seagrass, though reappearing in patches, has not reestablished in the nearshore areas along the affected shoreline of Grassy Key -- including the areas in front of the Property and the property owned by Petitioners -- to the extent that it existed prior to the storm. Post-Wilma Activities When Hurricane Wilma hit, the Property was owned by Burgess Lea Levine. Not long after Hurricane Wilma, Ms. Levine shored up the SW Jetty, and performed work in the “beach” area between the mid-bulkhead and the SW jetty. The photographic evidence also supports a finding that the rock outline of the Mid-jetty was reestablished to its pre-Wilma configuration. The repairs to the SW Jetty resulted in a structure that is virtually indistinguishable in size and shape to the SW Jetty as it presently exists. The wrack line at the beach area after it was “worked” following the passage of Wilma, shows the area in which work was done to be generally consistent with -- though slightly seaward of -- the 2005 post-Wilma shoreline. In 2008, Ms. Levine applied for a series of exemptions and for consent of use for state-owned lands for “shoreline repair, replace earthen ramp with a concrete ramp, repair wood deck, replace mooring piles & maintenance dredge existing channel w/in Atlantic Ocean.” On September 19, 2008, the DEP issued a regulatory authorization and proprietary submerged land approval. The Rights of Affected Parties that accompanied the September 19, 2008, notice provided that “[t]his letter acknowledges that the proposed activity is exempt from ERP permitting requirements” and that “this determination shall expire after one year.” The notice of Rights of Affected Parties did not apply to the proprietary authorization. At some time after issuance of the regulatory authorization, Ms. Burgess initiated additional work to repair the SW Jetty. The photographic evidence, which is persuasive, indicates that the work on the SW Jetty, including the concrete cap, was complete by the end of 2008. When Applicants purchased the Property, the determination of exemption issued in 2008 had, by application of the notice of Rights of Affected Parties, expired. Shortly after the Applicants purchased the property, they had the existing family home demolished. Applicants intend to construct a winter vacation home for their personal use on the property. 2012 Storms In August and October 2012, Grassy Key was subject to event-driven conditions as a result of the passage of Hurricanes Isaac and Sandy. Those storms redistributed large areas of sediments that had been moved offshore by the effects of Hurricane Wilma. The Proposed Permit The February 20, 2013, Permit provides that the structures described herein do not require the issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit, subject to the criteria and conditions in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.051. The Permit provides that the boat ramp is eligible to use the general permit in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.417, the repair and replacement of the dock is exempt pursuant to section 403.813(1)(b), Florida Statutes, the maintenance dredging of the Channel is exempt pursuant to section 403.813(1)(f), and that the repair and replacement of the NW Jetty, the SW Jetty, and the Mid-bulkhead are exempt because the structures are “historic in nature and pre-dates Department regulations.” In addition to the regulatory authorizations, the Permit granted proprietary authorization by Letter of Consent for the dock pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 18- 21.005(1)(c)4., and for the Channel, the NW Jetty, the SW Jetty, and the Mid-bulkhead pursuant to rule 18-21.005(1)(c)7. The Permit established the mean high-water line as that existing in 1974 and depicted on the “Richmond Survey.” Proprietary authorization for the boat ramp was determined to be unnecessary due to its location above the mean high-water line. Finally, proprietary authorization for the “Sandy Area” or beach between the Mid-bulkhead and SW Jetty was granted by Letter of Consent pursuant to rule 18-21.005(1). On September 20, 2013, the DEP filed a Notice of Additional Grounds for Exemption Determination, in which it found each of the structures subject to the regulatory review to “have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on water resources” and to thus be exempt from the need to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit pursuant to section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes. On December 12, 2013, Applicants filed a Notice of Filing Proposed Changes to the Pending Agency Action in which they agreed to certain additional conditions, and which referenced the October 1, 2013, repeal of rule 40E-4.051, and its replacement by the “Statewide ERP rules.” For purposes of this de novo proceeding, the proposed Permit at issue includes the February 20, 2013, Permit; the September 20, 2013, Notice of Additional Grounds for Exemption Determination; and the December 12, 2013, Notice of Filing Proposed Changes to the Pending Agency Action. The Proposed Structures Groins There has been some confusion relating to the names of the structures that are subject to the proposed Permit. Two of the structures are referred to as jetties, the NE Jetty and the SW Jetty, and the middle structure is referred to as the Mid- bulkhead. A jetty is a navigation structure that is constructed at a barrier inlet. Its purpose is to stabilize the inlet and prevent shoaling by “jetting” current and wave-driven sand further offshore, such that the offshore bar is moved into deep enough water to allow navigation in and out of the tidal inlet, and allowing the tidal current between the ocean and the receiving body of water to keep the inlet scoured and open. There are 48 jetties on the open coast of Florida, none of which are in the Florida Keys. A groin is a structure designed for shore protection purposes. A groin is typically aligned perpendicular to the shoreline, or “shore normal.” The structures identified in the Permit as the NE Jetty and the SW Jetty are clearly groins, and not jetties. The mid-bulkhead is a groin, generally for shore confinement, with a channel-facing bulkhead. For purposes of continuity, the structures will be identified by the names given them in the Permit. Since there is negligible wave energy along the shoreline normal conditions, the groins have little or no day- to-day effect on longshore transport. Under storm conditions, the structures affect longshore transport, as evidenced by accretional “fillets,” and function as shoreline protection and confinement structures. The rock groins provide shelter, habitat and structure for corals, sponges, lobster, and fish in the area. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the groins authorized by the Permit will have no adverse effect on fish and wildlife resources. NE Jetty The NE Jetty was originally constructed in the early 1960s, likely concurrent with the dredging of the navigational channel. The quality of the aerial photographs of the period make it difficult to tell if the NE Jetty was a loosely-placed rock embankment or a more well-designed and constructed structure. However, the fillet of sand accreted to the north of the Channel demonstrates that the jetty was in existence and functioning as a shore-protection structure. By the 1970s, the NE Jetty had become overwhelmed by longshore sediment transport from the northeast. Sediment overtopped the NE Jetty and filled in the landward reaches of the Channel. At that point, ability of the NE Jetty to perform as a shore protection structure was compromised to the point that it could no longer hold the shoreline out of the basin or the landward portion of the Channel. The Mid-bulkhead became the dominant structural control over the shoreline and started to accrete the shoreline to the northeast. At some time between 1977 and 1981, the Channel was maintenance dredged pursuant to a permit issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation, DEP’s predecessor agency. The NE Jetty appeared on the plans for the maintenance dredging. Thus, the most reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence is that the NE Jetty was repaired and restored in conjunction with the approved maintenance dredging. By 1981, the NE Jetty had been restored as the dominant shore protection structure north of the Channel, and a fillet of accreted material had been reestablished. The aerial photographs from that period are not sufficiently distinct to determine the precise size, shape, and configuration of the NE Jetty at that time. However, there is no evidence of additional work having been performed on the NE Jetty between 1981 and 1985. By 1985, the NE Jetty existed in substantially the size, shape, and configuration as it existed at the time of Hurricane Wilma. Between 1981 and the 2005 arrival of Hurricane Wilma, the evidence is convincing that the NE Jetty was holding up the shoreline to the northeast and preventing sediment from filling in the upper reaches of the Channel. Although the evidence suggests that the NE Jetty had, by 2005, begun to show its age, the continuous presence of an accretional fillet demonstrates that it continued to serve its function as a shore-protection structure. Although the NE Jetty suffered damage from Hurricane Wilma, it continued to perform its shoreline protection function. Aerial photographs taken in 2009 and 2011 show a relatively distinct structure with a well-defined accretional fillet. Thus, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that, at the time of its repair in May 2011, the NE Jetty was a functional groin. The NE Jetty, as repaired in 2011, is of substantially the same size, shape, and location as the structure depicted in aerial photographs taken in 1985, 2009, and early 2011. Although the elevation of the structure was increased over its pre-repair elevation, the increase was that reasonably necessary to prevent the function of the structure from being compromised by the effects of age and weather. The work performed on the NE Jetty, consisting of new rock laid on top of the existing rock, constituted repair and maintenance of the existing structure. Since 2005, and at the present time, the shoreline north of the NE Jetty has reached a state of equilibrium and stability, and is not expected to change significantly from its current condition. The preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence demonstrates that the effect of the NE Jetty on the shoreline and water resources of Grassy Key in the vicinity of the properties owned by Applicants and Petitioners is minimal and insignificant. The sand and sediment accreted to the north of the NE Jetty since 1981 is in the range of 250 square feet. SW Jetty The aerial photographs from 19647/ demonstrate that some form of structure then existed at the location of the current SW Jetty. The structure is indistinct due to what appears to be sidecast material from a small channel in front of the property to the immediate south of the Property. By 1971, the SW Jetty had become more distinct. From that time forward, the SW Jetty, and its accompanying fillet of accreted material, appears in roughly the size and shape of the structure as it appeared immediately prior to the arrival of Hurricane Wilma. The SW Jetty was heavily impacted by Hurricane Wilma. The overwash from the storm created a substantial runout alongside the SW Jetty, and the post-storm aerials suggest that the jetty boulders were undermined and shifted from their more uniform 2003 appearance. Immediately after Hurricane Wilma, the owner of the Property commenced restoration and repair activities. As part of the activities, the SW Jetty was repaired with the addition of boulders, which were often three feet and every now and then as much as four feet across. The boulders, being irregularly shaped, could not be stacked like Legos®, so the repairs were not neatly within the precise pre-Wilma footprint. However, the repaired SW Jetty was substantially in the length and location as existed prior to Hurricane Wilma, though it may have had a slightly wider cross-section. By 2007, the work on the SW Jetty was complete, and it had assumed its present appearance with the addition of a concrete cap. Its appearance -- i.e. length, width, and location -- in 2007 and 2008 was not dissimilar from its appearance in 2003. As repaired, the SW Jetty effectively constitutes the same structure that it has been since its initial construction. From a coastal engineering perspective, the work that was performed on the SW Jetty, consisting generally of new rock laid on top of the existing rock, constituted repair and maintenance of the existing structure. Dr. Lin testified that between 1974 and 2011, the area to the southwest of the southwest jetty was “about equalized,” though it was “accreting a little bit.” Thus, the effect of the SW Jetty on the shoreline of Grassy Key in the vicinity of the properties owned by Applicants and Petitioners from 1974 to 2011 was minimal and insignificant. Dr. Lin testified that, since 2011, the same area had eroded. The only substantive shoreline change that logically accounts for that subsequent erosion is the Mid-bulkhead extension, which is slated for removal under the terms of the proposed Permit. Petitioner testified that she observed no adverse effects from activities on the Property until after February 2011.8/ Since work on the SW Jetty was complete by no later than 2008, Petitioner’s testimony supports a finding that the SW Jetty has had no measurable effect on the water resources in the vicinity of the properties owned by Applicants and Petitioners. The preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence demonstrates that the effect of the SW Jetty on the shoreline and water resources of Grassy Key in the vicinity of the properties owned by Applicants and Petitioners is minimal and insignificant. Mid-bulkhead The structure of the Mid-bulkhead first appeared as part of the sidecast material from the excavation of the navigation channel in 1964. It coalesced into a defined but smaller and more rudimentary structure in the 1971-1972 time period. At that time, it was acting as the predominant shore protection structure due to the overtopping of the NE Jetty with sediment, which also filled in the landward reaches of the Channel. By 1981, after the maintenance dredging of the Channel, the Mid-bulkhead had assumed substantially the size, shape, and location that it has currently. The Mid-bulkhead has a navigation function of protecting the landward extent of the Channel from the collapse of adjacent sand and sediment, and a shore protection and compartmentalization function. Those functions have been consistent since 1981. The Mid-bulkhead appears to have been subjected to the overwash of sand and sediment from Hurricane Wilma, though it maintained its shape and form. The outline of the Mid-bulkhead appears to be more well-defined after the initial post-Wilma repairs. In any event, the configuration and size of the Mid-bulkhead is substantially the same as it had been since 1981. At some point, the interior section of the Mid- bulkhead was topped with soil that is inconsistent with that naturally occurring in the area. That fill was confined, and brought the Mid-bulkhead to a more even grade with the rock outline, but could have had no measurable effect on the shoreline and water resources of Grassy Key in the vicinity of the properties owned by Applicants and Petitioners. The preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence demonstrates that the effect of the Mid-bulkhead is minimal and insignificant. Channel In 1961, the Department of the Army authorized dredging of a navigation channel at the Property. The approved channel was to be 700 feet long, 30 feet wide, and to a depth of five feet below mean low water. The Florida Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund issued a letter of no objection. By 1964, the Channel that is the subject of this proceeding had been dredged, though not to the 700-foot length approved. Rather, the Channel was dredged to a length of approximately 290 feet. Much, if not all of the dredge spoil was sidecast, creating a rock structure alongside the Channel. Measurements taken during the course of this proceeding demonstrate that the initial dredging resulted in near vertical side slopes, which shows that the bailing of the bedrock was accomplished to the limits. The width of the Channel is from 28 feet to 32 feet wide, which is within an acceptable tolerance of the 30-foot approved width. In 1976, the then-owner of the Property sought a permit from the DEP’s predecessor, the Department of Environmental Regulation, to maintenance dredge the Channel to a dimension of 290 feet long and 30 feet wide, to a depth of minus 8-feet mean high water, and to construct a new rock jetty to extend 230 feet waterward from the existing terminus of the NE Jetty. Given the mean tide range of 1.7 feet at the Property, the depth of the proposed dredging would have been minus 6.3 feet mean low water, or 1.3 feet deeper than originally approved. The permit drawings depict the existing NE Jetty, the Channel boundary, the outline of the Mid-bulkhead, and the sidecast rock structure alongside the southern side of the Channel. The permit was denied. In 1977, the owner of the property reapplied for a permit to maintenance dredge the Channel to a dimension of 290 feet long and 30 feet wide, and to a depth of minus 4.0 feet below mean low water nearshore to minus 6 feet below mean low water at the waterward end. The proposal to construct an extension of the NE Jetty was deleted. The permit was issued, and a severance fee for the dredged material was paid based on a projected 700 cubic yards of material removed. The permit drawings and photographs depict the existing NE Jetty, the nearshore Channel boundary, and the general outline of the Mid- bulkhead. By 1981, aerial photographs demonstrate that the maintenance dredging of the Channel was complete, the NE Jetty was in place and functioning to protect the shoreline as evidenced by the accretional fillet, and the Mid-bulkhead had assumed its approximate current shape and configuration. Although the Channel has varied in depth over the years since the maintenance dredging and Hurricane Wilma, the greater weight of the evidence, including photographic evidence, indicates that the Channel was well-defined and remained navigable during that period. The Channel is an open-water exposed channel. Water in the Channel mixes due to direct tidal flow and the sheet flow of water due to shear wind stress. As water passes over the Channel, it sets up gyre, which is a mixing process. The open- water exposed Channel is subject to a high degree of mixing, even on normal waveless conditions, because of the wind transport of water and the tidal transport of water. The Channel is not a semi-enclosed basin. A semi- enclosed basin does not receive the direct forcing functions that an open-water channel receives. A semi-enclosed basin has no direct connection to open waters, but is connected to open waters by a narrower opening. Although a semi-enclosed basin exchanges water via every tidal cycle, the flushing process is one of slow mixing, in which a little bit of water is added to and withdrawn from the larger basin through the narrow opening during each tidal cycle. In such a case, a flushing analysis may be necessary to determine how much time and how many tidal cycles it may take to effect a complete exchange of the water in the semi-enclosed basin, and thus, for example, to dilute a pollutant to an acceptable level. A flushing analysis is not needed in this case because the Channel is an open-water, openly-exposed location subject to a high degree of mixing under normal day-to-day tidal processes. There is no greater basin connected by a restricting connection as with a semi-enclosed basin. Rather, the Channel has direct exposure to the tides, along with wind shear stress moving the water. The evidence in this case is substantial and persuasive, because the Channel is highly exposed to the open water and the tides, and a well-mixed and well-flushed aquatic system, that a flushing analysis is neither required nor necessary. Dock The dock made its first obvious appearance in 1981. It appears in a consistent shape and appearance through 2011. Aerial photographs taken in 2012, after the maintenance dredging of the Channel was conducted, show the dock had been removed. At the time of the hearing, the Applicants had installed new pilings and vent boards for the replacement dock, but the decking had not been installed. Work to complete the replacement of the dock was halted due to the pendency of the litigation challenging the structures. The proposed dock is less than 500 square feet. It is proposed for non-commercial, recreational activities. It is the sole dock proposed on the Property. The proposed dock will not impede the flow of water or create a navigational hazard. Boat Ramp Since the issuance of the 2008 approval, the boat ramp site was graded and stabilized in limerock material. The concrete ramp was not completed due to the pendency of the litigation challenging the structures. However, Applicants propose to pave the ramp with concrete. Based on Mr. Clark’s observations during his site visits, the boat ramp is landward of the mean high waterline depicted on the survey. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the proposed boat ramp will provide access to the Channel, which provides a minimum navigational access of two feet below mean low water to the ramp. Applicants have agreed to install depth indicators at the ramp to identify the controlling depths of the navigational access. The work on the ramp involves no seagrass beds or coral communities. The ramp as proposed will require no more than 100 cubic yards of dredging. The total width of the ramp is to be 20 feet and the ramp surface will be no wider than 12 feet. Beach Area The area between the SW Jetty and the Mid-bulkhead is an accreted beach-type area that has been confined and protected by the Mid-bulkhead and the SW Jetty. The shoreline landward of the mean high water line, from the dry beach and to the upland, is somewhat steeper than adjacent unprotected shorelines, which is indicative of the grooming of the upper beach sediment and the stability of the shoreline between the Mid-bulkhead and the SW Jetty. As a result of the Hurricane Wilma storm surge, a substantial amount of sediment was swept across the Property and into the Atlantic waters. The beach area was inundated with sand and sediment from the overwash, which appears to have moved the shoreline well waterward of its previous position. Along the northern side of the SW Jetty, a substantial channelized gully was created. The configuration of the shoreline post-Wilma suggests that efforts were made by the then-owner of the Property to fill in the gully on the northern side of the SW Jetty, and to groom and restore the shoreline by redistributing sand and sediment on the Property. It is typical, and allowable under DEP emergency final orders, for affected property owners to redistribute overwashed deposits and place them back within the beach system. In that regard, the DEP encourages the redistribution of clean beach sand back onto the beach. The then-owners of the Property were not alone in taking steps to address the effects of Hurricane Wilma on their adjacent shorelines. The photographic evidence demonstrates that Petitioners engaged in similar restorative activities, which included bringing in material purchased from a contractor to fill in a gully created on their property by the overwash. Observation of representative soil samples from the beach area demonstrate that the soils are consistent with those in the upper beach areas found throughout the area. The only areas of inconsistent soils were found in the interior of the rock structure of the Mid-bulkhead, which contained a four to six-inch layer of soil with a different consistency and darker brown color, and small area of similar soil directly adjacent thereto and well above the mean high water line. The greater weight of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence demonstrates that there was no substantial amount of “fill” from off-site placed on or adjacent to the beach area. Rather, the nature, appearance, and composition of the soils suggests that the temporary increase in the size of the beach area after Hurricane Wilma was the result of grooming and redistribution of sand and sediment pushed onto the Property and into the nearshore waters by the Hurricane Wilma storm surge. In the years since Hurricane Wilma, the influence of normal tidal and weather-driven events has returned the beach area between the mid-bulkhead and the SW jetty to roughly the configuration that existed prior to the passage of Wilma, though it remains somewhat waterward of its pre-Wilma location.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the February 20, 2013, proposed Permit, as conditioned by Applicants’ December 12, 2013, Proposed Changes to the Pending Agency Action. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 2014.
The Issue The issue is whether Vista of Fort Walton Beach, LLC (Vista), should be issued Surface Water Management Permit No. 04-2012-0013G authorizing the construction of an earthen embankment dam and impoundment to impound stormwater runoff from a proposed commercial development in the City of DeFuniak Springs (City), Walton County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The District has regulatory jurisdiction over the construction of certain types of impoundments within its boundaries. If an impoundment is at least ten feet high but less than 25 feet in height and has an impounding capacity of at least 50 acre-feet, a general permit is required. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A-4.041(1). Vista, a limited liability corporation, owns an odd- shaped parcel in the City on which it intends to build a small commercial development consisting of a 17,000-square foot building, a parking lot, and related amenities. The vacant parcel abuts the north side of U.S. Highway 90 just east of 18th Street and is approximately 1.66 acres in size. The property is partially wooded and has a small wetland area on its northeastern corner. In conjunction with the proposed commercial development, Vista intends to construct an impoundment to control stormwater runoff from the project. Because the impoundment will be ten feet high and have an impounding capacity of at least 50 acre-feet, Vista is required to obtain a general permit. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A-4.041(1). Vista filed a permit application with the District on June 8, 2012. On August 8, 2012, the District gave notice that it intended to issue a surface water management permit to Vista. The permit allows the construction of a stormwater retention basin. A mitigation plan for impacts to 0.23 acres of wetlands was also approved but is not at issue in this proceeding. As described in the District staff report, the project will encompass one earthen embankment dam and impoundment to impound the storm runoff. It will operate as a dry stormwater retention basin designed to impound water only during rainfall events. The facility will utilize a pipe and riser spillway system, and the basin outfall will be protected by a rip-rap lined plunge pool. Due to space restrictions, an engineered retaining wall will be incorporated into the embankment's north side slope. The stormwater will discharge through controlled overflow structures into a nearby wetland area that lies northeast of Vista's property and will then be integrated into an existing channel that eventually forms the headwaters of Sandy Creek to the north. Petitioner has resided on her property since around 1932. Her odd-shaped parcel, described as being between five and seven acres in size, lies immediately to the north of Vista's property. A small wetland is located on the southeastern corner of her property. The two parcels share a common boundary line, appearing to be no more than a hundred feet or so. Because the boundary line is lower than the highest part of each owner's property, a "trench" has formed along the line. Wabash Avenue, a platted but un-built roadway that begins on U.S. Highway 90, runs to the northwest through the wetland area and along the eastern boundaries of both properties. As alleged in the Second Amended Petition, Petitioner is concerned that the project will cause flooding on her property. In a broader sense, she appears to be opposed to any commercial development on Vista's property. The back side of the Vista parcel slopes downhill to a recessed area that is adjacent to both properties. Although some fill has already been placed on the property in preparation for the development, the applicant intends to add "a lot" more fill to the entire parcel to create a gradual slope down to the edge of Wabash Avenue. A basin or pond around 0.20 acres in size will be formed within the fill area and a retaining wall consisting of multiple segments will be constructed around the basin. The wall will be separated from Petitioner's property by a 20-foot buffer, while at its closest point the basin will be "35 feet or so" from her property line. The plans submitted by the applicant demonstrate that the system will be built in accordance with all District standards and should operate in a safe manner. Before construction can begin, the District must approve the retaining wall design specifications. During rain events, the first inch of water will be retained on site for treatment. Additional water will be stored in the basin and then slowly allowed to discharge from the basin into the wetlands. The point of discharge from the basin is at a location a minimum of 20 feet south and east of Petitioner's property line. To ensure that the retention system will not discharge runoff at a higher rate than was discharged before development, Vista performed hydrologic calculations demonstrating pre- and post-development runoff. According to accepted models developed by the United States Department of Agriculture and its predecessor, the Soil Conservation Service, the current peak runoff from the Vista property is 2.46 cubic feet per second (CFS) during a two-year, 24-hour storm event. After development, the volume of water will be reduced to 0.74 CFS. During a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the volume of runoff post-development is anticipated to drop from 12.59 CFS to 6.51 CFS. Finally, during a 100-year, 24-hour storm event, post- development runoff will be slightly reduced from 19.64 CFS to 18.99 CFS. Therefore, as sited, sized, and designed, the project will reduce runoff during all anticipated storm events. The foregoing calculations were not credibly contradicted and satisfy the requirement that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the project will not cause an increased flow such that it will endanger downstream property in times of flood with respect to state or frequency. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A-4.301(2)(f). They also confirm that water in the impoundment will not be raised to a level that could be harmful to the property of others. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A- 4.301(2)(c). Thus, the potential for flooding on Petitioner's property will be reduced if the project is constructed as permitted. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is currently repairing the drainage system on U.S. Highway 90 in front of the Vista property. Stormwater from that project drains into the wetlands through an easement deeded to the City at the rear of the Vista property. Petitioner pointed out that after the DOT project began, and fill was added to the Vista property, she has experienced an increase in water on her property. Whether the DOT project is responsible in any way for this hydrologic change is not known. However, accepted testimony by two professional engineers supports a finding that Vista is not responsible for any hydrologic changes on Petitioner's property. Vista was not required to take into account any runoff from the DOT project in making its hydrologic calculations because the amount of runoff from its own property will actually be reduced by the retention system. At hearing, Petitioner contended that a fence she built on the common boundary line with Vista sometime after 1990 was illegally removed by Vista in order to construct the basin. According to Mr. George, who first surveyed the property line in 1990 and then surveyed it a second time a few years ago, the fence was built a few feet beyond Petitioner's property line and lies within the buffer zone between the basin and her property. Petitioner argues that even if this is true, the doctrine of adverse possession applies and she is now the owner of the property on which the fence was built. This type of dispute, however, can only be resolved in circuit court, and not in an administrative forum. See § 26.012(2)(g), Fla. Stat. The District has examined the property records and is satisfied that Vista has ownership of the property on which the impoundment will be built. Notably, the basin will not be located within the 20-foot buffer where the fence once stood and which is dedicated to the City as an easement. Finally, through cross-examination at hearing, Petitioner suggested that any project designed by humans carries with it the remote possibility that it will fail and create a catastrophic situation on her property. In the unlikely event that the design and operation of the retention basin threaten the safety of adjoining property owners, section 373.429 and rule 40A-1.205 enable the District to revoke, suspend, or modify a permit to protect the safety of others.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Northwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of Surface Water Management System Permit No. 04-2012-0013G to Vista. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathon Steverson, Executive Director Northwest Florida Water Management District 152 Water Management Drive Havana, Florida 32333-4712 Helen J. Crenshaw 61 North 18th Street DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433-9547 Kevin X. Crowley, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 James Busby Vista of Fort Walton Beach, LLC Post Office Box 760 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549-0760
Findings Of Fact Respondent TCI has more than 70 homes completed or under construction in furtherance of plans to build 141 single family residences as part of Tymber Creek Phase I, a development in Volusia County. The development site is partially bounded by the Little Tomoka River, a natural body of water which is navigable in fact. The site of the construction respondent DER proposes to permit is home to wildlife of various kinds, including woodpeckers, great horned owls, herons, mussels, manatees, snakes, turtles and alligators. At the present time, boat traffic on the Little Tomoka River is negligible. The dock TCI proposes to build would have a total area of 120 square feet and would not impede the flow of the river. It would protrude over the water no more than five feet along the bank of the river at a point where the river widens, described by some of the witnesses as a lagoon, and would not constitute a hazard to navigation. With respect to the dock, the foot bridges, the boat ramp and the removal of the agreed upon portion of unauthorized fill, the permit DER proposes to issue would be before the fact. According to DER's appraisal of TCI's original, revised permit application, which was received in evidence as DER's exhibit No. 5, TCI made revised application, on November 29, 1977, for "after-the-fact approval for the placement of approximately 3500 cubic yards of fill After TCI had filled, it constructed parking and recreational facilities. In evaluating TCI's application, Steve Beeman, a DER employee, described the site in January of 1978: Approximately 1.6 acres of filled flood plain is presently covered by a sports complex including tennis courts, swimming pool and recreation building and an asphalt parking lot. An additional 3000 square feet has been filled and paved (asphalt was applied after receipt of DER cease and desist notice) for [access to] a [proposed] boatramp and parking area, and approximately 14,000 square feet of swamps have been filled in the construction of a 1800+ feet "natural trial". DER's exhibit No. 5. By letter dated February 22, 1978, respondent DER notified respondent TCI of its intent to deny TCI's initial application, as revised. Among the reasons DER gave for its intended denial were expected violations of various water quality standards, including a prohibition against oils and greases in concentrations greater than 15 mg. per liter ("or that no visible oil, defined as iridescence, be present to cause taste or odors, or interfere with other beneficial uses.") DER's exhibit No. 4. Rule 17-3.05(2)(r) , Florida Administrative Code. This water quality standard violation was anticipated because of "the [projected] focussing of stormwater runoff into the Little Tomoka River, across paved surfaces, which are high in petroleum based pollutants." DER's exhibit No. 5. In its notice of intent to issue a permit, DER proposes to authorize TCI "to realign (straighten) existing boatramp access road." DER's exhibit No. Mr. Wheeler's letter to Mr. Shirah of April 6, 1978, DER's exhibit No. 2, describes the proposed access road change as part of "discussions and agreements concerning resolution of the initial unauthorized fill and subsequent after-the- fact application." A drawing attached to this letter indicates that the contemplated alteration of the roadway would decrease the amount of paved surface to some unspecified extent. Another part of these "discussions and agreements concerned removal of some 1900 cubic yards of fill. Most of the fill designated for removal had been placed with the idea of creating a dry pathway through the marshy area separating the Little Tomoka River from an asphalt parking area. So placed, the fill dirt acts as a dike, preventing the preexisting communication between the waters of the Little Tomoka River and the waters of the adjacent marsh. At the hearing, Mr. Wheeler testified that, if revised in accordance with DER's exhibit No. 2, TCI's project would pose no threat to water quality, but he conceded that the effects of gasoline boat motors were not considered. An increase in beat traffic would likely result in an increase in oils and greases in the waters of the Little Tomoka River.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent DER, deny the permit is proposed to issue to respondent TCI in letters to petitioners dated April 7, 1978. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida Judson I. Woods, Jr., 32301 Esquire Post Office Box 1916 Ormond Beach, Florida 32074 Tymber Creek, Inc. c/o Stan Shirah Route 40 Twin River Drive Ormond Beach, Florida 32074
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the development order issued by Polk County for Robert Crowder's development known as Paradise Country Estates complies with Chapter 380, Fla. Stat. (1991). The Department of Community Affairs' Petition for Appeal of Development Order (the DCA Petition) alleges that the development order is contrary to Polk County's 1985 comprehensive plan for the following reasons: Paragraph 11 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to the provisions of Policy 9, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the Land Use Element (LUE) of the 1985 Plan. Policy 9 states: "Structures should be placed in a manner which will not adversely affect the natural flow regime and which will not reduce the recharge capabilities." Paragraph 12 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to the provisions of Policy 10, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE. Policy 10 states: "Placement of structures shall be consistent with sound flood plain management practices such as compliance with the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973." Paragraph 13 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to the provisions of Policy 11, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE and Policies 9 and 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element of the Plan. Respectively, these policies state: 11. Groundwater withdrawal should not exceed the safe yield per acre as determined by Water Management Districts or successor agencies. * * * Minimize the adverse impacts of development on resources of the Floridan Aquifer, wetlands and flood-detention areas. Protect the normal quantity, quality and flow of ground water and surface water which are necessary for the protection of resources of state and regional concern. Paragraph 14 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to a section of Part II of the Conservation Element of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan entitled "Rare and Unique Natural Resources," which describes the Green Swamp as a "rare and unique land area resource for conservation consideration" and also states: The potentiometric high of the Floridan Aquifer lies within this area. . . . The area has a high potential for recreational and natural enjoyment. . . . The Green Swamp area is the largest expanse of forest in Polk County, with abundant water and wooded areas to provide for wildlife habitats. This area has great significance as an area for conservation of land, air, water, open space and wildlife habitats. Paragraph 15 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to the following section on "Density" found in Part IV of the Conservation Element, entitled "Summary of Special Problems, Areas, Issues, and Relationships": The subject of development density is a particular issue of vital importance to the county. Low density development in some areas and high density in other areas is important so that demands for public facilities can be economically and efficiently handled, so that environmental degradation is minimized, and so that land, not suitable for development, can be saved for important natural functions. The present zoning ordinance classifies most of the county in a Rural Conservation (RC) classification that permits low density development without proper regard for those areas that are best suited for development. Portions of the county should be protected from development pressures and appropriate areas should be zoned to accommodate rational densities. The present level of protection, provided by the zoning system is not brought to bear for conservation purposes. Paragraph 16 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to Policy 14 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element of the Plan: "Protect or improve existing ground and surface-water quality." Paragraph 17 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to Policy 2, Objective I, "Agricultural Uses," in Part V of the LUE: Protect, to the maximum extent possible, agricultural lands from encroachment of incompatible land uses and any detrimental effects of development adjacent to agricultural areas. Paragraph 19 1/ of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to Policy 2, Objective IV, "Residential Uses," in Part V of the LUE: Promote and encourage new residential development adjacent to established growth centers, to ensure the orderly use of land and the efficient provision of facilities and services. Paragraph 20 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to Section 5-1(6) of Polk County Ordinance 81-28 (the County Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code). 2/ Article V is entitled "Flood Protection Standards." Section 5-1 provides in pertinent part: GENERAL STANDARDS: The following minimum standards shall apply to new construction and substantial improvements in all areas of special flood hazard, and to any development, other than phosphate mining, within 100 feet of a watercourse: * * * (6) On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. Paragraph 21 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to Section 5-2(4) of Polk County Ordinance 81-28. 3/ Section 5-2 provides in pertinent part: SPECIFIC STANDARDS: The following minimum standards shall apply in all areas of special flood hazard where base flood elevation data has been provided: * * * Subdivision Proposals: All subdivision proposals and other proposed developments shall be reviewed by the County Engineer. [I]f the proposal is in an area of special flood hazard, it shall be reviewed to assure that the following standards are met: All such proposals shall be reasonably safe from flood waters resulting from the base flood. All such proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. Base flood elevation data shall be provided for all such proposals. Roads shall be reasonably safe from flood waters resulting from the base flood. Paragraph 22 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to Section 6-2(3)(a) of Polk County Ordinance 81-28. Article VI of Polk County's Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code is entitled "Water Management Standards." Section 6-2 provides in pertinent part: GENERAL STANDARDS: The following minimum standards shall apply to all development which occurs within an area of special flood hazard and to any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate . . .. * * * (3) (a) The amount of site alteration within a wetlands soil association shall be limited to ten percent (10%) of the area of wetlands soil association within any given total site.
Findings Of Fact The Proposed Project and Location. The project site is on Dean Still Road in Polk County, approximately 2 miles west of State Road 33. It is approximately 6 and 1/2 miles from Polk City and 15 miles from the City of Lakeland. The proposed project is comprised of 356 lots on approximately 1280 acres with a gross density of 1 unit per 3.6 acres. Although the average lot size varies, the project was reviewed under the Southwest Florida Water Management District's (SWFWMD) criteria for rural development which requires that at least 90% of the lots be at least 2 acres in size (excluding jurisdictional wetlands), and 10% of the lots be at least 1 acre (excluding jurisdictional wetlands). The site has been zoned Rural Conservation under Polk County's Zoning Code for approximately 12 years. This designation allows a density up to 1 unit per acre. Individual water wells and on-site waste disposal systems (septic tanks) will be utilized for each home. There are no water or sewer extensions proposed for the site or for adjacent areas by any governmental entity. Access to the site from Polk City is along Dean Still Road, which is unpaved at this time. The County has plans to pave it in the near future. Of the 1280 acres comprising the project site, 362 acres have been claimed as jurisdictional wetlands and approximately 642 acres have been mapped within the 100-year floodplain by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 51 of the lots platted in the project are entirely within the FEMA 100- year flood plain. Several other lots contain large portions within FEMA 100- year flood plain. Despite the significant amount of wetlands and floodplains on the site, the project is designed so that no net loss will occur in the floodplains and less than 1% (.59%) of the jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by development. Impervious conditions on the site will only increase by 2.8% after development. All structures will be set at or above the 100 year flood elevation, as calculated by the project engineers, and will be constructed in accordance with the County's flood protection standards. The project is designed so that post-development runoff is less than pre-development runoff and post-development drainage basins conform to pre-development drainage basins. Existing drainage patterns for the site are designed to be maintained. The property comprising the project has been used through the years for a variety agricultural purposes, including harvesting watermelons, soybeans, corn, and silage. It has been drained and ditched to facilitate these activities. It is currently being used for grazing cattle. A sod farm is located to the south of the property. Additional cattle grazing lands run south from there to Polk City. To the north of the site are ranchlands which run to the border of the Withlacoochee Wildlife Area. Immediately to the west of the site are 20-30 scattered mobile homes and additional ranchlands in a subdivision known as Evans Acres. This subdivision was initially approved by DCA in 1983, and was comprised of 48 lots on approximately 1,290 acres. The original lots ranged in size from 5 to 60 acres. Apparently, individuals have since split their lots and many of the existing lots are 2 to 5 acres in size. A few of the original lots are used for both residential and ranching purposes. Including the large and small lots, there are approximately 163 lots on the property comprising Evans Acres. On the property directly to the east of the site are approximately 16 mobile homes along Melody Lane. These existing homesite numbers are small and scattered when compared to the 356 lots proposed for Paradise Country Estates. Approximately 120 families live in the general vicinity of the proposed project. The Green Swamp. The project is within the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). The site is within the drainage basin of the Withlacoochee River, which has been designated an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) and is approximately three and a half miles to the north. The Green Swamp ACSC was designated by the Legislature. Chapter 79- 73, 380.0551, Florida Statutes (1991). It was the second area to be designated and now is one of only four areas in the State retaining this designation. The Green Swamp was designated because the area's natural resources were considered to be of regional and statewide importance and because of concerns that uncoordinated development could endanger these resources. The Green Swamp is a regionally significant area for recharge of the Floridan Aquifer. The Green Swamp is unique because the top of the Floridan Aquifer is at or near the surface over much of the area. This creates what is known as the potentiometric high of the Floridan Aquifer. The potentiometric high pressurizes the Floridan Aquifer, permitting it to be used for drinking water wells. The Florida Aquifer serves as the principal source of drinking water for central Florida. It supplies the entire State with about 48 percent of its ground water supply. The potentiometric high also serves to hold back salt water intrusion into the Floridan. Recharge is important in maintaining the potentiometric high of the Floridan Aquifer. Although the Green Swamp has been characterized as a recharge area for the Floridan Aquifer, the actual recharge capabilities of the Green Swamp vary considerably throughout the region. Some areas within the Green Swamp, such as the high, dry, sandy ridge on the eastern boundary of the Green Swamp clearly are high recharge areas. In some areas, the Floridan Aquifer rises essentially to the ground surface, with no confining layer above it. In those areas, a considerable amount of surface water filters into the Floridan Aquifer. In other areas, including in the vicinity of the project site, recharge capability is considerably less. See "G. Review under the 1985 Plan and the Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code, (3) Ground Water Recharge." The head waters of several rivers, including the Withlacoochee River, are in the Green Swamp. Polk County's Comprehensive Plan. Polk County's Comprehensive Plan, as amended by Polk County Ordinance 85-08 (Ordinance 85-08), is referred to as Polk County's 1985 comprehensive plan, or the 1985 plan. It includes a Land Use Element (LUE) and a Conservation Element. The Land Use Element. The 1985 Plan is a "policy plan." As a "policy plan," the LUE does not map land use classifications or densities or intensities of development. The different parts of the plan must be considered together to ascertain their meaning. As stated in the Foreward to the LUE: The Policy Plan is a flexible and realistic guide to future public decisions. Existing conditions are first determined and analyzed. Then, community goals are identified providing a process of finding out where we are and where we want to go. * * * . . .. The challenge is to determine the means of achieving the identified community goals at minimal cost and the least possible hardship on any segment of our society. Under the policies planning process this is accomplished by developing all possible alternative courses of action that will advance the community toward the desire goal. The policies are then a general statement of purpose and outlining broad principles toward which the plan is guided in the implementation stage. A policy plan does not detail specific actions or locations on a map. Rather it provides a broad framework within which day-to-day decisions are made in a consistent manner toward an identified goal. The ultimate product of those community goals will be the heritage of Polk County's future. At 4-2, the LUE discusses the need to give attention to "the proper distribution of population densities in keeping with sound planning practices, the physical capabilities of the land, and the relationship of the population and housing densities to existing or proposed transportation facilities and other community services." It then speaks to "Retention of Open Spaces": A second potential problem to be faced, as urban growth continues, is the potential loss of the open space characteristics that now contribute substantially to its desirability as a community in which to live and visit. To a large extent, the desirable characteristics are provided by extensive agricultural areas. Such uses are compatible with residential and other types of urban land uses and should be encouraged to remain to the maximum extent possible. Desirable open space is also presently provided by . . . wetland areas not suited for urban development. By encouraging such areas to remain in their present condition, a substantial amount of open space can be retained to provide the needed visual relief and openness necessary within a highly urbanized community. At 4-5, discussing "Retention of Unique Agricultural Lands," the LUE states that cattle raising and field crops are subject to potential intrusion by urban development and states: "The development of planning techniques, which will encourage the retention of important agricultural lands and provide for orderly urban development, thus becomes a matter of considerable importance." The Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs) of the LUE starting at 5-1 include the following: General Goal: To maintain productive and mutually compatible use of lands and waters within Polk County in a manner consistent with the economic, physical and social needs, capabilities, and desires of Polk County and its citizens. Objective I - Agricultural Uses: To ensure that a sufficient quantity of appropriate lands are available and protected for productive agricultural uses necessary to a sound economic base. Policies: * * * 2. Protect, to the maximum extent possible, agricultural lands from encroachment of incompatible land uses and any detrimental effects of development adjacent to agricultural areas. * * * 5. Provide all possible incentives for the retention of lands into agricultural production. * * * Objective III - Natural Resources Minimize adverse impacts of development on valuable natural resources including the protection of water quality and quantity in surface and ground waters. Policies: * * * 2. The subdivision and platting of land shall be permitted in accordance with the zoning district applied to the property and in compliance with the Polk County Subdivision Regulations and Flood Protection/Surface Water Management Ordinance. * * * Site alteration should be permitted only when such alteration will not adversely affect the natural flow regime or the natural recharge capabilities of the site. Site alteration should be permitted only when such alteration will not result in the siltation of wetlands or reduce the natural retention and filtering capabilities of wetlands. Site alteration activities should provide for water retention and settling facilities; should maintain an overall site runoff equivalent to the natural flow regime prior to alteration and should maintain a runoff rate which does not cause erosion. * * * Storm water runoff should be released into the wetlands in a manner approximating the natural flow regime. Structures should be placed in a manner which will not adversely affect the natural flow regime and which well not reduce the recharge capabilities. Placement of structures shall be consistent with sound flood plain management practices such as compliance with the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. Groundwater withdrawal should not exceed the safe yield per acre as determined by Water Management Districts or successor agencies. Objective IV - Residential Areas To ensure that an adequate supply of appropriately located lands are available for the development and maintenance of residential areas that can be efficiently and effectively provided with necessary public facilities and services. Policies: Promote and encourage the provision of a wide range of housing opportunities, in appropriate locations, to permit a choice of housing types to suit the particular needs of all citizens. Promote and encourage new residential development adjacent to established growth centers, to ensure the orderly use of land and the efficient provision of facilities and services. * * * Encourage new residential development that can be effectively served by the existing transportation facilities. Promote new residential development in non-urban areas, that is properly designed to combine with future adjacent development, to create a neighborhood of sufficient size to facilitate the efficient and effective provision of all necessary public facilities and services. Part VI of the LUE, entitled "Alternate Approaches," discusses the pros and cons of different concepts for planning and managing of growth. It settles on a "Resource-Responsive Concept" as the preferred growth alternative. This concept holds in part: Wherever possible, future growth should be encouraged to take place in or near established urbanized areas. Scattered growth incapable of functioning as meaningful self-contained communities should be discouraged. And it is preferable that the urbanizing area, as it extends over extensive areas within the County, not be developed in one continuous, monotonous maze of residential, commercial, and industrial uses - but that there be open space provided at appropriate intervals so as to provide visual relief and a sense of scale to the overall urban community. Such open space areas can be productively utilized for agricultural and conservation purposes or recreation areas, public facilities and services required. It is proposed that the most appropriate urban growth concept to meet such guide-lines and the policy statements of this land use plan be a resource-responsive growth concept. Under this concept, urban growth and development will be guided and encouraged with respect to its responsiveness to the natural and human resource capabilities of the County. Within any given area of the County, the resources will be careful evaluated in terms of their capability to support growth, and the physical form and intensity of development will be then shaped to provide the physical form and intensity of development will be then shaped to provide a balance with such resources. Prime resources to be considered are as follows: Natural Resources Topography and soil conditions Vegetation and tree cover Wildlife habitats present Drainage characteristics; relationship to rivers and lakes Natural water supply capabilities General aesthetic qualities Human Resources Transportation facilities (roads, railroads, airports) Available water supply and sewage facilities Community facilities, such as schools, parks, libraries Protective services, such as fire and police Established land uses within the area Economic conditions and potentials. Part VII of the LUE, entitled "Implementation," states: "Initial implementation of a Comprehensive Plan and initiation of the continuing planning process for growth management requires the establishment of principals and standards for measurement of proposed activities against the adopted policies of the community." It includes a section entitled "Principles and Standards for the Control and Distribution of Population Densities and Structural/Development Intensity," which provides in part: All Types of Urban Development: * * * Each new development or land use should follow sound land planning principles to maximize site advantages, avoiding when possible, adverse impacts on the natural resources and hazards to health, safety, or general welfare. * * * Residential Development: Low-density single-family development (1-4 units/acre), other than rural residences related to agricultural operations, shall be located in areas capable of being developed into stable, cohesive neighborhoods. In a section entitled "Legal Requirements of Implementation," it states that "all actions taken by local government, whether in the form of permitting private development to occur or in the provision of public facilities and services, are required to be fully consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The plan, once adopted, must occupy a central position in the consideration of all proposed development." In another section, entitled "Coordination with Other Plan Elements," it states that the "land use element cannot be implemented alone [but] must be coordinated with the [other elements]." In another section, entitled "Needed Improvements in the Zoning Ordinance," it is recognized that "it will be essential that a thorough review of the zoning ordinance be undertaken and that the ordinance be revised as appropriate to achieve consistency with overall planning objectives." It acknowledges that there were "major identified deficiencies in the current zoning regulations" and advises that "the following needs among others should be addressed as a minimum in making revisions to the zoning ordinance": "Revision of the Density Requirement in Residential Districts." Despite the admonitions in the 1985 Plan, to date there has been no revision of the land use classifications, densities, or intensities in the County's zoning code. As before the 1985 Plan was adopted, zoning in the Green Swamp ACSC remains Rural Conservation (RC) and allows up to one unit per acre residential development. The Conservation Element. Part II of the Conservation Element of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan is a "Summary of Natural Resources." At 2-18, there appears a section entitled "Rare and Unique Natural Resources," which describes the Green Swamp, as well as other natural resources in the County, as a "rare and unique land area resource for conservation consideration." At 2-19, as amended by Ordinance 85-08, this element of the comprehensive plan also states: This area comprises the hydrologic heartland of Central Florida and contains the headwaters of the Withlacoochee, Hillsborough, Peace and Oklawaha Rivers. The potentiometric high of the Floridan Aquifer lies within this area. . . . The area has a high potential for recreational and natural enjoyment. . . . The Green Swamp area is the largest expanse of forest in Polk County, with abundant water and wooded areas to provide for wildlife habitats. This area has great significance as an area for conservation of land, air, water, open space and wildlife habitats. Part IV of the Conservation Element is a "Summary of Special Problems, Areas, Issues, and Relationships." Starting at 4-2, it addresses the following: Displacement . . .. Cities in Polk County have historically developed on the ridges and the urbanized areas are spreading outward rapidly into the prime citrus lands and the "marginal" (flood prone) lands. There is considerable concern about urban development in wetland soils and flood prone areas. The double barreled concern for development in wetland soils and wetland areas is that they might well serve valuable natural functions and the private and public problems created by development subjected to flood damages. This property damage promotes public pressure for drainage in wet areas. The issue in wetland drainage and flood control is the jeopardy of natural functions that wetlands and water fluctuations provide in natural systems and flood damage costs. . . . [C]oncern for the growing demand for uplands development which steadily displaces [good pasture land] . . . relate[s] to the use of good pasture land for development. Density The subject of development density is a particular issue of vital importance to the county. Low density development in some areas and high density in other areas is important so that demands for public facilities can be economically and efficiently handled, so that environmental degradation is minimized, and so that land, not suitable for development, can be saved for important natural functions. The present zoning ordinance classifies most of the county in a Rural Conservation (RC) classification that permits low density development without proper regard for those areas that are best suited for development. Portions of the county should be protected from development pressures and appropriate areas should be zoned to accommodate rational densities. The present level of protection, provided by the zoning system is not brought to bear for conservation purposes. * * * Water * * * Another area of concern relates to the draw down and recha[r]ge of the Floridan Aquifer and is claimed to be a rational concern of an area much larger than Polk County. * * * Pollution Environmental pollution, as it relates to water, is a major local concern. * * * Water pollution is concerned because of its effects on recreation and tourism. Water degradation and the pollution of lakes and rivers tends to remove the intangible value that Polk County enjoys in thee form of its surface water resources. * * * Also, the related cost issues of municipal sewage treatment and disposal, effluent disposal techniques, septic tank useage are environmentally economic choices to be made by the public. Discussing the topic, "Preservation and Management," starting at 4-4, Part IV of the Conservation Element states in part: Many issues relate to what, how, or when something should be conserved. * * * Lakes, rivers and canals of the county are of concern as sources of flooding and as resources for flood control, if properly managed. Flood prone areas surrounding surface water have been identified for much of the county. These water bodies are also legitimate concerns as the habitat for fish and other wildlife that provide a significant value in their own right. The area of these water bodies are also special scenic and recreational values that contribute to tourism and development. Part V of the Conservation Element is where the "Goals, Objectives and Policies" are found. It start with some general observations, including in part: . . .. It can be expected, therefore, that the natural environment of the county will continue to undergo modification of one type or another in response to the needs of people. . . . The inventory of total space will, therefore, diminish as these changes take place, resulting in corresponding losses within particular categories of natural resources. What is important is that no critical loss of impairment of a natural resource take place; that development be managed so as to create minimum disturbance of the remaining natural resource systems; and that there be compensation replenishments of resources wherever possible. It then lists a General Goal and several resource-specific objectives and policies: General Goal: Maintain, protect, develop and utilized the natural resources in a manner that will balance and replenish the natural ecological systems and will best serve and promote the desired quality of life for Polk County resident, present and future. * * * Water Resource Objective: To conserve and protect the quality and quantity of water resources through proper management. * * * 6. Identify and protect significant acquifer [sic] recharge areas for maximum recharge capability and protect the water available for aquifer recharge. * * * Minimize the adverse impacts of development on resources of the Floridan Aquifer, wetlands and flood-detention areas. Protect the normal quantity, quality and flow of ground water and surface water which are necessary for the protection of resources of state and regional concern. Protect the functions of the Potentiometric High of the Floridan Aquifer. Prevent further salt-water intrusion into the Floridan Aquifer. Protect or improve existing ground and surface-water quality. Protect the water retention and biological-filtering capabilities of wetlands. Protect the natural flow regime of drainage basins. Rare and Unique Natural Resource Objective: To conserve and protect, through proper resources management, areas having unique natural characteristics and particularly sensitive environmental balance. * * * Policies: Identify all significant areas in Polk County deemed to have unique natural resource characteristics. Encourage proper management of unique wetland areas of the County as a vital water resource. Encourage a proper system for control of development in flood prone and wetland areas to regulate alternation [sic] of the natural system of water retention and storage during periods of heavy rainfall. Preserve and protect, to the maximum extent possible, all delineated areas having valuable unique resource characteristics. Part V of the Conservation Element concludes with a "Summary," which states in part: The objectives and policies set forth above should not be considered as controls to be rigidly applied in every instance of decision-making dealing with the natural environment. Rather, in dealing with resource conservation issues, guidance is preferable to control. . . . A number of potential implementation actions and programs, presented in the following part, will further assist in establishing the direction and scope of conservation activities in the County. Part VI of the Conservation Element is entitled "Implementation." While acknowledging at 6-1 that Polk County cannot establish an implementation program unilaterally, without regard to the co-responsibilities of other governmental authorities at the regional state and federal levels, it states at 6-2 that Polk County "can and should": Utilize the general objectives and policies established by this Element as considerations in all decision making concerning the use and improvement of land within the County. * * * 3. Utilize, to the fullest extent possible, the policies and implementation controls of other elements of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan, and those of other governmental entities having jurisdiction, to further the conservation of natural resources. Starting at 6-3, Part VI discusses the Conservation Element's "Relationship to Other Plans." At 6-4, after stating that the Conservation Element will be largely implemented through the policies and programs of other comprehensive plan elements, Part VI provides: Land Use Element - This element will provide the overall framework for conservation [sic] potentialities through the manner in which land uses are distributed, arranged, and interrelated throughout Polk County. Policies and implementation programs of this element will determine the degree to which new development is properly related to soil types and capabilities, natural habitats, flood prone areas, wetlands and unique resource areas of the County. Land regulatory controls such as zoning, subdivision regulations and development impact reviews provide the basic tools for implementation of the policies of the Land Use Element. Starting at 6-5, Part VI discusses "Guidelines for Implementation." At 6-5, it points out: The nature of conservation policy, being of such broad application and diversity of interest, requires that its effective implementation utilize many approaches, techniques and procedures. Its application is carried out, for the most part, in an indirect way as a by-product of other more direct decisions and actions relation to the development and growth of the County. It is essential, therefore, that Polk County draw upon all possible alternative mechanisms and techniques which will lead to the effective conservation of its natural resource systems. Among the various approaches which Polk County may utilize to further its conservation objectives are the following. * * * Influence in the allocation of resources to achieve the objectives of the conservation plan. Control of events which determine resources allocation in keeping with the conservation plan. * * * Specific procedures and techniques which may be utilized to facilitate the implementation process include the following. * * * 7. Protect natural water bodies and adjacent wetland areas through the regulation of development densities and proper management of stormwater runoff. This would require a cooperative effort with the Water Management Districts in identifying flood plains for various flood frequencies. Polk County's Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code. Polk County's Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code was enacted as Ordinance 81-28 and was amended by Ordinance 85-07. Article V is entitled "Flood Protection Standards." Section 5-1 provides in pertinent part: GENERAL STANDARDS: The following minimum standards shall apply to new construction and substantial improvements in all areas of special flood hazard, and to any development, other than phosphate mining, within 100 feet of a watercourse: * * * (6) On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. Section 5-2 provides in pertinent part: SPECIFIC STANDARDS: The following minimum standards shall apply in all areas of special flood hazard where base flood elevation data has been provided: * * * Subdivision Proposals: All subdivision proposals and other proposed developments shall be reviewed by the County Engineer. [I]f the proposal is in an area of special flood hazard, it shall be reviewed to assure that the following standards are met: All such proposals shall be reasonably safe from flood waters resulting from the base flood. All such proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. Base flood elevation data shall be provided for all such proposals. Roads shall be reasonably safe from flood waters resulting from the base flood. Article VI of Polk County's Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code is entitled "Water Management Standards." Section 6-2 provides in pertinent part: GENERAL STANDARDS: The following minimum standards shall apply to all development which occurs within an area of special flood hazard and to any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate . . .. * * * (3) (a) The amount of site alteration within a wetlands soil association shall be limited to ten percent (10%) of the area of wetlands soil association within any given total site. Review under the 1985 Plan and the Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code. Land Use, Density and Intensity. DCA alleges that the land use, density and intensity of the development Crowder proposes for the site is inconsistent with: (1) the section on "Density" found in Part IV of the Conservation Element, entitled "Summary of Special Problems, Areas, Issues, and Relationships"; (2) a section of Part II of the Conservation Element of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan entitled "Rare and Unique Natural Resources"; (3) Policy 2, Objective I, "Agricultural Uses," in Part V of the LUE; and (4) Policy 2, Objective IV, "Residential Uses," in Part V of the LUE. 6/ As previously stated, the 1985 Plan is a policy plan that does not map land use classifications or densities or intensities of development. Crowder's Paradise Country Estates is consistent with the County's Zoning Code, which has not changed since before the 1985 plan, and Zoning Map. The development was not otherwise reviewed for land use, density or intensity. But it is clear that the 1985 plan does not condone exclusive resort to the zoning code to determine the appropriateness of the land use, density and intensity for development in the Green Swamp ACSC. See, especially, the section entitled "Density" in Part IV of the Conservation Element of the Plan. In the Green Swamp ACSC, especially, reference must also be made to the Plan itself. See Part VII of the LUE, entitled "Implementation." It is not found that all residential use on the Crowder property would be, in itself, inconsistent with the 1985 Plan. But, taking into consideration all of its land use, density and intensity provisions, it must be found that the development order issued in this case, especially at its level of density and intensity and especially in the manner of its issuance, is inconsistent with the 1985 Plan. The crux of the problem with this development, like others in the Green Swamp ACSC already permitted by County development orders, is that, first, the 1985 comprehensive plan and the County zoning regulations in place at the time were inadequate and, second, the steps envisioned in the plan to make them adequate have not been taken. For the plan and the zoning regulations to be adequate, and for a development order for a project in the Green Swamp ACSC in Polk County to be consistent with the 1985 comprehensive plan, either: (1) the plan must be amended to map land use classifications, densities and intensities of development in the Green Swamp ACSC; (2) the zoning code must be amended as envisioned in the comprehensive plan for the Green Swamp ACSC; or (3) the County must evaluate development orders for projects in the Green Swamp ACSC on a case- by-case basis for consistency with the comprehensive plan. None of these three possibilities happened in this case. 7/ Flood Plain Delineation. Paragraph 12 of the DCA Petition alleges that the Crowder development violates Policy 10 of Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE: "Placement of structures shall be consistent with sound flood plain management practices such as compliance with the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973." Specifically, it is alleged that the use of a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) undetailed "A" zone to map the flood prone area on the site, and the failure to perform a detailed study, did not comply with the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. Other allegations in the DCA Petition also implicate the delineation of the flood prone areas on the site. See, (5) Ground and Surface Water Quality, below. A FEMA "A" zone is the zone depicting the area determined by FEMA to be flood prone. In this context, FEMA defines a "flood prone" area as an area flooded in a 100-year, 24-hour storm. At the time Polk County reviewed the Crowder project for approval of the roadway and construction drainage plans, FEMA was requiring that a detailed study be performed to delineate the flood prone area. Polk County apparently was not aware of this requirement and was not enforcing it. Nor, apparently, was Crowder's engineer aware of it. In any event, Crowder did not have a detailed study performed to delineate the flood prone area on the site, and the County did not require it. In approximately March, 1992, Polk County received a written communication from FEMA advising of the requirement for a detailed study of the flood prone area in the case of developments like Crowder's. Polk County now requires compliance with this FEMA requirement. Crowder did not rely simply on the FEMA undetailed "A" zone to map the flood prone area on the site. Crowder's engineers used the existing undetailed FEMA maps as a starting point for determining base flood elevations. The engineers digitized the areas which had been designated as flood prone on the FEMA panels. The engineer then overlayed the digitized FEMA map with the on- site wetlands survey of the property, which had been field-staked and field- shot. Topographical field shots of the property which had been conducted throughout the site at one foot intervals were also overlayed on the digitized FEMA map. In addition, the engineer took into consideration mapped wetlands soils and compared flooding conditions which had occurred on adjacent property to assess whether all areas actually prone to flooding had been characterized as flood prone on the FEMA map. The methodology used by the project engineers was based on sound engineering practices. Nonetheless, it does not qualify as a "detailed study" as far as FEMA is concerned. A "detailed study" would include the application of a computer program that would "route" hypothetical flood waters onto and through the property to ascertain flood elevations in different stages of the hypothetical flood. It is not possible to determine how a detailed study would change the delineation of the flood prone area in Crowder's proposal. The total area of flood prone area could either increase or decrease; it could increase in some places and decrease in others. As it is, several of the lots platted in the Crowder development would be entirely within both the FEMA undetailed "A" zone and the flood prone area mapped by Crowder's engineers. Ground Water Recharge. DCA alleges that platting Paradise Country Estates will adversely impact recharge of the Floridan Aquifer, contrary to Policy 9 and 11, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE, and Policies 9 and 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element, of the 1985 comprehensive plan. In the vicinity of the project site, the Floridan Aquifer comes to within 35 feet approximately of the ground surface. Above the Floridan Aquifer is a shallow aquifer, which rises to within approximately 12 inches of the surface. There is a layer of clastic soils (sand and clay) between the surficial aquifer and the Floridan Aquifer. This confining layer slows the rate of recharge to the Floridan. As a result, the project site is in an area having low, or even very low, to moderate recharge capabilities, at best. USGS Professional Paper 1403-E, which was released in 1990, uses groundwater modelling to quantify recharge rates, instead of using qualitative terms such as "low," or "poor," "moderate" and "high" to describe recharge capabilities. USGS Professional paper 1403-E reports that many areas in the Green Swamp previously labeled as good, moderate or high recharge areas are actually capable of only recharging at rates of 3 to 4 inches per year. The subject property appears to be in the 2 to 3 inch range per year for recharge according to USGS Professional Paper 1403-E. Only three known sample soil borings have been taken on the project site. As a result, the extent of permeability and overall thickness of the confining layer between the surficial and Floridan aquifers is not certain. But there is no reason to believe that there are any karst features or other geologic faults in the area that would allow for direct connections between the surficial and Floridan aquifers. The soil borings that have been taken on the site verify the various geological surveys and studies describing the recharge capabilities in the area. Due to the site's limited capabilities as a recharge area, it is unlikely that the platting of this site will result in any significant reduction in its natural recharge rate. The project is not inconsistent with Policy 9 or 11, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE, or Policies 9 or 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element, of the 1985 comprehensive plan. Individual Water Well Use. DCA alleges that the planned use of individual water wells in Crowder's Paradise Country Estates will impact the quantity of the Floridan Aquifer (and the surficial aquifer) contrary to Policy 11, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE, and Policies 9 and 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element, of the 1985 comprehensive plan. The potentiometric level of the Floridan Aquifer protects the Floridan Aquifer from salt-water intrusion. Significant de-watering of the aquifer caused by large municipal or industrial wells extracting a high volume of water from the aquifer at an intense rate can lower the potentiometric pressure, thus increasing the potential for salt-water intrusion into the aquifer. (Furthermore, the lowered potentiometric pressure creates a hydraulic gradient which encourages surface waters to percolate downward at a faster rate due to the decreased pressure in the Floridan Aquifer. See the preceding sections on Ground Water Recharge and the following section on Ground and Surface Water Quality.) Large municipal, industrial or agricultural wells which exceed 6 inches in diameter must obtain consumptive use permits from the SWFWMD. The Water Management District takes into account what the District determines to be a safe yield per acre when issuing a consumptive use permit. Small, residential wells are not subject to this permitting process as their impacts are much smaller and less intense, and not a concern with regard to their effect on the potentiometric pressure. For this reason, some coastal areas have begun using smaller, individual wells as an alternative to larger municipal wells. The Floridan Aquifer is replenishing itself fast enough for residential wells not to "de-water" or "draw down" the aquifer's supply of ground water. Residential wells do not lower the potentiometric pressure of the Floridan to a significant degree. Nor would they affect the normal supply of ground water, or contribute to salt-water intrusion. Pumping tests performed within two to three miles west of the project site which utilized several residential-size wells support the foregoing conclusions. For these reasons, it is found that the development will not adversely impact the normal supply of ground water and thus will not interfere with the functions of the potentiometric high of the Floridan Aquifer, including its protection against salt-water intrusion. Since the water wells would pump only from the Floridan Aquifer, they would not impact the supply of surface water. In regard to the use of water wells, the project is not inconsistent with Policy 11, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE, or with Policies 9 or 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element, of the 1985 comprehensive plan. Ground and Surface Water Quality. DCA alleges that Paradise Country Estates will result in unacceptable contamination of the Floridan Aquifer, the surficial aquifer, and the surface water (particularly the Withlacoochee River) contrary to Policies 9, 10 and 14 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element. Paragraph 20 of the DCA Petition alleges that the use of individual on-site disposal systems (OSDS), or septic tank systems, in violation of Section 5-1(6) of Polk County Ordinance 81-28 (the County Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code), 8/ in particular, will be part of the cause of the unacceptable contamination (other causes being from lawn and garden maintenance and automotive wastes.) On-Site Disposal Systems. Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth requirements for the use of on-site waste disposal, or septic tank, systems in the State of Florida. That chapter, which is administered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") through local health departments, provides construction standards for the installation of on-site waste disposal systems. The septic tank serves as a holding tank designed to separate solids and floatable materials and allows anaerobic digestion of organic materials. The remaining effluent exits the tank into the soil infiltrative process, which is referred to as the drainfield. The drainfield is composed of gravel placed around perforated pipes, which are designed to evenly distribute and release the effluent into soil material where the effluent undergoes aerobic digestion. Eventually, any constituents remaining in the effluent which have not been absorbed by the root zone or otherwise decomposed reach the subsurface waters which are referred to as the surficial water table. Each individual lot owner will be required to obtain a permit from the local health department prior to installing an on-site waste disposal system. Prior to issuing a permit, HRS inspects each site to assess soil limitations and to conduct a percolation test to determine the seasonal high water table for the site. Because the soils on the site are severely limited for filtration purposes and the high water table is only 10 to 12 inches below the surface, individual lot owners will be required to mound their on-site waste disposal systems to overcome these limitations. Although the fill used to mound the systems will be comprised of suitable soils, it is possible that the foreign soils will absorb moisture from the existing soils on this site, a phenomenon referred to as capillary fringe affect. This phenomenon can cause those portions of the fill which come in direct contact with the existing soils on the site to lose their filtration capabilities. Unless the fill becomes saturated from other sources, it is unlikely that capillary fringe affect will render the filtration process ineffective. The effects of capillary fringe affect can be lessened by mixing fill with soils found on the site, a practice undertaken by contractors when installing on-site waste disposal systems. In addition, increasing the amount of fill used to mound the system would decrease the potential affects of this phenomenon. 9/ Floridan Aquifer Water Quality. In some areas of the Green Swamp, the Floridan Aquifer is actually considered a surficial aquifer since no confining layers of soil or clay separate the subsurface water from the Floridan Aquifer. These areas would typically be characterized as areas with high recharge capabilities (or high potential for contamination). However, throughout the project site, a confining layer exists which is composed of clayey sands which have a very low permeability. Therefore, there is relatively little interaction between the surficial aquifer and the Floridan Aquifer on this particular site. For this reason, the use of individual on-site waste disposal systems on this site would pose no significant risk to the water quality of the Floridan Aquifer. Surficial Aquifer and Surface Water Quality.-- As for the surficial aquifer and surface water quality, Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, requires on-site waste disposal systems be located at least 75 feet from waterbodies. Normally, and when the systems are operating properly, this assures that adequate filtration and decomposition occurs before wastewater reaches surface waters on or near the site. But, in the case of the Crowder proposal, it is necessary to consider that at least some of the mounded systems will be subjected to flooding and will become saturated. Even based on the analysis by Crowder's engineers, 51 of the lots in Paradise Country Estates are entirely flood prone; there is no place to put an OSDS on those lots that is not flood prone. If a "detailed study" had been done, it is possible that more lots would be entirely within the flood hazard zone. Other lots not entirely within the flood zone may not be able to accommodate an OSDS on the part of the lot not within the flood zone. If the OSDS mound is saturated during flood conditions, the system will fail, and untreated waste, or inadequately treated waste, will be released into the surface flood waters. This waste water will move laterally across the project site. Roots may absorb some nitrates or other organic compounds; 10/ otherwise, the waste water and its constituents will remain in the surface water. Lateral movement across the site generally will be slow, as the site is relatively flat. Some of the waste water and its constituents will get into the surficial aquifer. There are ditches or canals alongside and on the site that will direct the rest of the surface water into Pony Creek and other tributories of the Withlacoochee River, an Outstanding Florida Water approximately three and a half miles to the north. The Department of Environmental Regulation issued a dredge and fill permit for the project's road network's impact on wetlands on the site. But it did not pass on the use of OSDS in the individual lots. It also erroneously referred to the Withlacoochee as a natural Class III, instead of an Outstanding Florida Water. See F.A.C. Rule 17-302.700(9)(i). The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) issued a surface water management permit for the project. In evaluating a permit application, SWFWMD considers surface water quality. But the focus of SWFWMD's inquiry is the pre- and post-development peak flows. Also, when it considers water quality, SWFWMD considers the impact of site alteration on water quality, not the impact of the use of OSDS on the site. In addition, the Crowder project was reviewed under special criteria for low-density rural subdivisions that do not require the submission of as much information. It was not clear from the evidence precisely how SWFMD evaluates water quality under those criteria. For these reasons, based on the evidence, it cannot be said that the Crowder project's OSDS will be meet the minimum standard of being "located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding," as required by Section 5-1(6) of Polk County Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code, or that the project will "protect the normal . . . quality of ground and surface water . . . necessary for the protection of resources of state and regional concern," as required by Policy 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element of the Plan. Finally, the project will not "protect or improve existing ground and surface-water quality," as required by Policy 14 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element of the Plan. Other Appeal Issues. Except as set forth above, the Crowder development did not violate the 1985 comprehensive plan and Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code provisions cited in the DCA Petition. Agency Practice - Other Development in the Area. As previously described, Evans Acres, to the west of the Crowder site, was approved by DCA in 1983. (See Finding 10, above.) As approved, it was comprised of 48 lots on approximately 1,290 acres (a density of one unit per 27 acres). The original lots ranged in size from 5 to 60 acres. Unbeknownst to the DCA, individuals apparently have since split their lots and many of the existing lots are 2 to 5 acres in size. A proposed development known as Turkey Creek is located between the project site and Evans Acres. Turkey Creek is comprised of approximately 57 lots on 170 acres with a gross density of 1 unit per 3 acres. The physical characteristics of the Turkey Creek property, including the abundance of wetlands and floodplains, are essentially the same as the proposed project site. DCA appealed Turkey Creek in June of 1992. However, in that case, the County had been approximately two years late in rendering the Turkey Creek development order to the DCA. Meanwhile, the developer incurred development expenses and already had constructed roads and drainage facilities for the development. The developer, the County and DCA executed a settlement agreement which allows the development to proceed according to the original construction plans, but requires homeowners to install dual septic tank systems and have their septic tanks cleaned and inspected every three years. Several other developments, which are in the general vicinity of the project site and have many of the same physical characteristics, including Yearling Trace and Buck Hill, have been appealed by DCA. Yearling Trace is comprised of 108 units on approximately 544 acres. Buck Hill is comprised of 55 units on approximately 214 acres. Those projects were appealed by DCA in June and April, 1992. In some of these cases, the County did not timely render development orders to DCA in a timely manner. In the case of Buck Hill, the DCA had been mailed an unapproved copy of development plans in October, 1990; in early 1992, DCA contacted the County to inquire, as no County-approved development plans ever had been sent to the DCA. In many of these cases, substantial development expenses had been incurred; in some cases, roads and drainage facilities already had been constructed. DCA decided to settle the pending appeals in which the County was late rendering the development order, and in which the developer already had constructed roads and drainage facilities, consistent with the Turkey Creek settlement. In cases where the County was late rendering the development order, but the developer had not already constructed roads and drainage facilities, the DCA determined to settle not only for stipulations to upgrade the OSDS, as in the Turkey Creek settlement, but also for requirements that a "detailed" flood zone study be done, in accordance with the FEMA requirements. Prior to the DCA appeal, Crowder had expended approximately $31,000 in permit fees. In addition, he has incurred development costs, primarily for engineering fees and related services. Through the time of the final hearing, he had spent approximately $99,000 on engineering fees and services. (The evidence was not clear how much had been incurred by the time of the DCA appeal.) However, the County was not late in rendering the Crowder development order, and Crowder has not constructed roads or drainage facilities. In view of the different circumstances in Crowder's case, DCA's prior agency practices do not compel that Crowder's development be treated in the same manner, i.e., be settled on the same terms, as the Turkey Creek and the others. DCA has argued that FLWAC's Final Order in the case of Dept. of Community Affairs v. Narbi International Company, Inc. and Lake County, 14 FALR 3223 (1992), controls this case and requires the Crowder development order to be overturned on appeal. Narbi involved development Green Swamp ACSC, albeit in Lake County. Factually, there are many differences between Narbi and this case. The Narbi development order was a rezoning from agricultural with a residential density of up to one unit per five acres to a residential planned unit development (PUD) zoning with a density of one unit per 1.35 acres. Also, Lake County's comprehensive plan had an "urban containment policy," which DCA equated with its non-rule policy preventing "urban sprawl" or "leap-frog development." Thirdly, in Narbi, it was found that a geologic fault existed on the project site which allowed a direct connection from the surficial aquifer to the Floridan Aquifer. Because of the factual differences, Narbi does not control the outcome of Crowder's case. Conditions for Approval. Based on the testimony of its witnesses, DCA has proposed that, notwithstanding its deficiencies, the Crowder project can be approved if its density is lowered to between one unit per ten acres and one unit per 20 acres. The rationale of DCA's witnesses seems to be that the proposed lower density, in and of itself, would cure at least the most significant of the deficiencies. Since the Crowder development order under review was for approval of particular road and drainage plans, the plans would have to be redrawn at the lower density and resubmitted for approval by the County subject to the final order to be entered in this case. It is not possible for the Commission to approve, on condition of lowered density, the plans that were the subject of the development order in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order rescinding and denying approval for the development order in this case. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of March, 1993.
The Issue This case arises out of the denial by the Department of Environmental Regulation of an application by the Petitioner to construct a 24-slip marina on Bayou Chico in Pensacola, Florida. At the formal hearing, Petitioner testified on his on behalf and offered and had admitted into evidence one exhibit. The Respondent called as its only witness, Jeremy Craft, and offered and had admitted into evidence four exhibits. Counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with this order, they were rejected as not being supported by the evidence or as unnecessary to a resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact On March 18, 1982, Petitioner applied for a permit to dredge approximately 78,480 cubic yards from Bayou Chico and an unnamed embayment adjacent to the Bayou. The proposed project site is located in Pensacola, Florida, Bayou Chico in Section 59, Township 2 South, Range 30 West. Specifically, the project site is located on the south side of Bayou Chico just north of the Barrancas Avenue Bridge. On April 15, 1982, the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, sent a completeness summary to the Petitioner requesting additional information before the application or permit could be processed. Over a period of approximately a year and a half, Department of Environmental Regulation conferred with Petitioner concerning the proposed project and a number of different plans were discussed. In July of 1983, Petitioner submitted the July 11, 1983 plan, with modifications, and withdrew all prior plans. It is this plan which is the subject of this hearing. A field appraisal of the proposed site was made by Department of Environmental Regulation on December 25, 1982. On August 31, 1983, Department of Environmental Regulation issued an Intent to Deny the Petitioner's permit application. The Intent to Deny encompassed all plans and revisions submitted by the Petitioner, Department of Environmental Regulation based its denial on Petitioner's failure to give reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated by his project. The Department's denial also asserted that the project would also result in matters adverse to the public interest. The final proposal submitted by the Petitioner sought a permit to dredge a strip 100 feet wide by 450 feet long to a depth of 6 feet. This strip is adjacent to a spit or strip of land which separates Chico Bayou from the emboyment. This plan was subsequently modified to include dredging an additional 100 to 150 feet along the full length of the strip. This additional dredging would take the dredged area out to the deep water of Chico Bayou and was intended to eliminate a channeling effect. The purpose of the dredging is to enable the Petitioner to construct a marina or docking facility along the split. The marina would include 24 slips. The proposed dredge area gradually slopes from the shoreline to five and six foot depths 200 to 250 feet from the spit. The water in the embayment is highly polluted and at one time was used as a holding pond for mahogany logs because the wood-boring worms could not survive in the water. Bayou Chico is also very polluted and fails to meet the water quality standards found in Rule 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code, for the parameters lead, cadmium, copper, and aluminum among others. The bayou has for many years been used for boat and barge traffic. Jeremy Craft testified on behalf of DER and his opinions as to the impact of the project on water quality and marine life were uncontroverted. In Mr. Craft's opinion, the dredging proposed by the Petitioner would result in further degradation of the water quality in Bayou Chico by eliminating important shallow areas and underwater grasses. The deepening of the dredged area would limit the amount of oxygen available to the water in the bayou thereby harming the aquatic life by freeing many of the heavy metals which are presently bound in the sediments in the bayou. The shallow areas are the most important areas in cleansing the water. With increased oxidation, the biota survive better and the water is better cleansed. Freeing the heavy metals would allow their introduction into the food chain and accumulation in living organisms. The Petitioner has not informed DER of his specific dock specifications, stormwater plans, upland development plans, or dredge disposal plans. The type of dock will determine the type of boating traffic and this will indicate the amount and content of stormwater discharge. Because of the contaminated nature of the spoil, the Petitioner must provide reasonable assurances that the spoil and spoil water will be properly retained. Petitioner testified on his own behalf but did not present any evidence relating to the impact the proposed prod act would have on water quality.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the Petitioner's application for a permit as set forth in the Intent to Deny previously issued by the Department. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of May 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Thulman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Joe Pair 1200 Mahogany Mill Road Pensacola, Florida 32907 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The SFWMD is a public corporation in the state of Florida existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 573, Fla. Stat., and Title 40E, Fla. Admin. Code, as a multi-purpose water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Navy has proposed construction of a naval housing facility on the Peary Court site (the "Site") in Key West, Florida. The Site is approximately 25.89 acres and will provide 160 housing units for junior enlisted Navy and Air Force personnel and their families. The Site is the center of a larger, 37 acre drainage basin. The Site was formerly the location of military housing. However, for the past 18 years, the Site had been used by the City of Key West, with the assent of the Navy, for active and passive recreation for city residents. The Site contains a cemetery of historic value and a former military housing structure now being used by the Navy Key West Federal Credit Union with an associated parking area of paved asphalt. On February 6, 1992, the Navy submitted an application for a Surface Water Management District General Permit for the Project. The proposed surface water management system (the "System") was designed by Rice Creekmore, a registered professional engineer, and his company Johnson, Creekmore, and Fabray. The proposed System utilizes the existing topography and incorporates a number of drainage control mechanisms to manage the run-off from the Site. The System employs inlets, swales and culverts to direct stormwater run-off into dry detention areas (ponds) for pretreatment prior to discharging into seven 24-inch Class V injection wells (drainage wells). As discussed below, these injection wells must be permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation ("FDER"). The dry pond areas utilize key ditches, bottom elevation 1.0' NGVD, in order to hydraulically connect all of the dry pond areas together into one dry system prior to overflowing into the drainage wells beginning at elevation 1.5' NGVD. In other words, the detention ponds are interconnected with pipes. The design includes only one point where run-off would be discharged from the Site during any storm equal to a 25 year, three day storm event. That discharge would occur at the lowest point of the Site at the corner of Eisenhower and Palm. The water would be discharged through a V notch weir (the "Weir") into the City's stormwater system. An existing 12" storm drain line at the discharge point will be replaced by a 13.5" by 22.0" Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Pipe culvert. As discussed in more detail below, the System is designed so as to detain 1" of run-off within the dry detention ponds prior to any discharge through the Weir. After review of the application and submittals, the SFWMD issued a Notice of Intent to issue General Permit and Stormwater Discharge Certification No. 44-00178-S (the "Permit") on September 29, 1992. Petitioner and Intervenor timely petitioned for an administrative hearing challenging the SFWMD decision to award the Permit. There is no dispute as to the standing of either Petitioner or Intervenor. The SFWMD has adopted rules that set forth the criteria which an applicant must satisfy in order for a surface water management permit to issue. The criteria are set forth in Rule 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(m) and 40E-4.091(1)(a) incorporate by reference The Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within South Florida Water Management District - April, 1987, ("The Basis for Review"). The Basis for Review explicates certain procedures and information used by the SFWMD staff in reviewing a surface water management permit application. The SFWMD issues general permits for projects of 40 acres or less that meet specific criteria. All other projects must obtain individual permits which are reviewed by the District Board. The specific rules relating only to general permits are set forth in Rule 40E-40. In addition, the Basis for Review sets forth certain technical requirements which must be met for the issuance of a general permit including general construction requirements and special requirements for wetlands. The Basis for Review also sets forth criteria for how a proposed system should address water quantity and water quality issues. The SFWMD assumes that water quantity and water quality standards will be met if a system satisfies the criteria set forth in the Basis for Review. Water Quantity Criteria Rule 40E-4.301(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that a surface water management system will provide adequate flood protection and drainage. The purpose of the water quantity criteria is to insure that pre- development flows and post-development flows are equal. The SFWMD requires calculations of a project's projected post-development flow to guarantee that the post-development discharge rate will not be in excess of the pre-development discharge rate. These calculations are based on a 25 year, 3 day storm event. There is no stormwater management system in place at the Project Site. The pre-development topography results in a pre-development discharge point from the Site at the corner of Eisenhower Drive and Palm Avenue. At this point, a discharge or outfall pipe leads into the City of Key West's stormwater management system. The City's system ultimately discharge into Garrison Bight, a nearly waterbody which is discussed in more detail below. At the time the Navy began planning for the Project, the Navy was told that the discharge pipe had a capacity of accepting water at a rate of 40 cubic feet per second ("CFS"). The Navy initially designed a system to utilize this capacity. Subsequently, it was discovered that, due to the size of the pipe at the discharge point and the capacity of the pipes downstream in the City of Key West's stormwater management system, the City would not allow or accommodate a discharge of more than 11 CFS from the Site. Thus, the System had to be redesigned so that the discharge to the City's system would not exceed 11 CFS. The system was redesigned to incorporate the seven (7) Class V injection wells. The injection wells are intended to insure that discharge from the Project into the City stormwater system through the surface water discharge pipe at Eisenhower Drive and Palm Avenue will not exceed 11 CFS. The injection wells introduce treated stormwater into the ground before it reaches the discharge point. The pre-development rate of surface water discharge from Peary Court in a 25 year, 72 hour storm event was 55 CFS. This rate was calculated based upon a site survey, a determination of the existing amount of pervious versus impervious surface area, and a calculation made through a generally accepted civil-engineering computer program. 1/ This predevelopment discharge is the amount of water which would be expected to discharge off-site after percolation occurs. The number and size of the injection wells for the proposed system were determined based upon tests of an on-site twelve-inch fire well. The results of the tests revealed that the on-site test well could manage in excess of 2 CFS. Due to test limitations, the exact capacity could not be measured, but the capacity was clearly more than 2 CFS. These results were then compared with data obtained from the engineering firm of Post, Buckeley, Schuh & Jernigan for installed wells in the Florida Keys of a similar nature and size to the wells in the proposed surface water management system. The Post, Buckeley test results indicated that 24-inch wells had a capacity of 31 CFS. In addition, the design engineer consulted with South Florida Well Drillers, who have drilled other wells in the Florida Keys including 24-inch wells at the Key West airport which were completed shortly before the application for this Project. South Florida Well drillers found the capacity of 24-inch wells in Key West to be in the 25 to 30 CFS range. Based upon the results of the test well and the related reports described above, the project engineer based his design of the surface water management system on an estimated well capacity of 8.4 CFS for each well. These estimates were submitted by the Navy in its application and were appropriately determined to be reasonable by the SFWMD staff. Indeed, the evidence established that 8.4 CFS was a conservative estimate. The seven injection wells, at an estimated capacity of approximately 8.4 CFS each, provide in excess of 56 CFS of well discharge capacity, which is beyond the necessary discharge volume for the Project. Limiting Condition No. 13 of the Permit requires the Navy to obtain a well capacity test from a Florida Registered Professional Engineer or Professional Geologist following the installation of the first Class V injection well at the Site. If the results of this test indicate that the capacity of the well is different than that submitted by the Navy in its application, the Navy must apply for a permit modification to provide a design which incorporates a representative injection well flow-rate and an appropriate number of wells for the Site. In view of the reasonableness of the capacity rates utilized for the wells, it is unlikely that the results of the capacity test will result in any major design change in the proposed surface water management system. The use of the injection wells in the proposed surface water management system will significantly reduce the amount of run-off which would otherwise reach Garrison Bight from the Site. After the System is completed, it is expected that the amount of run-off from the Site that will reach Garrison Bight will be only 20 percent of the predevelopment amount. In addition, because there has previously been no management of the run-off from the Site and surrounding areas, there has been a frequent flooding problem at the corner of Eisenhower Drive and Palm Avenue after heavy rain storms. The proposed surface water management system will accommodate the overflow of water which historically occurred when discharges from Peary Court and the surrounding areas could not be accommodated by the Key West storm water management system. Petitioner and Intervenor suggest that the effect of tidal flow on the capacity of the wells was not fully considered. The evidence established that the design engineer considered normal high tides in calculating groundwater elevations. Respondent's engineering experts have concluded that the proposed surface water management system is effectively designed to accommodate the Florida Keys' tidal flows. Petitioner and Intervenor offered no expert testimony to refute this conclusion and/or to establish that the tides would impact the effectiveness of the proposed surface water management system. In the event that an extremely high tide occurs at the time of a storm, the detention ponds may hold standing water for a short time. This water would not be discharged off-site. There is no evidence that tidal influences would in any way adversely affect the System's ability to uptake pollutants in the "first- flush". The Class V shallow injection wells are an integral part of the proposed Peary Court surface water management system. Without the injection wells it is not clear whether the Project could meet the SFWMD water quantity criteria. The SFWMD does not have authority to permit Class V injection wells. FDER must permit those wells. The Peary Court site is not the first Florida Keys' project permitted by the SFWMD which utilizes injection wells. The surface water management permits for the other projects were issued contingent upon obtaining the necessary permits for the injection wells. Special Condition No. 14 of the Permit provides that the Permit is conditioned on the Applicant obtaining the applicable permits from FDER for the injection wells. During the interim while the Navy is seeking the FDER permits, it should be required to retain all run-off on-site. If the Navy is not able to obtain the necessary FDER permits for the injection wells, the Navy should be required to either retain all run-off on-site or propose an alternate design to meet the SFWMD's water quantity requirements. A modified permit application with a new Notice of Intent should be required for any alternate design. The following Special Condition Number 14 was offered by the SFWMD at the hearing (language revised from original condition is highlighted and underlined): THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED BASED ON THE APPLICANT OBTAINING THE NECESSARY CLASS V INJECTION WELL PERMITS FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (FDER). THE PERMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT AN APPROVED CLASS V DRAINAGE WELL PERMIT FROM FDER PRIOR TO OPERATION OF THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. IN THE INTERIM, THE PERMITTEE SHALL CERTIFY TO THE DISTRICT THAT NO OFF-SITE DISCHARGE WILL OCCUR UNTIL THE APPROVED CLASS V DRAINAGE WELLS ARE IN OPERATION. IF THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DESIGN MUST BE MODIFIED AS A RESULT OF FDER REQUIREMENTS OR IF THE CLASS V INJECTION WELL PERMITS ARE NOT ISSUED, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FOR A PERMIT MODIFICATION TO PROVIDE A SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DESIGN WHICH SHALL MEET DISTRICT CRITERIA IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME. The proposed additional language requires the Navy to certify that no off-site discharges will occur until the injection wells are permitted and are operating. This revised language should be added to Special Condition No. 14 to clarify that the injection wells must be in operation prior to any off-site discharge from the surface water management system. Maintenance of the surface water management system entails upkeep of the dry detention areas and routine grass cutting, as well as inspection of the injection wells on a periodic basis to guard against clogging and reduced capacity. The system is essentially designed to operate without direct surveillance or intervention. Injection wells do not require any additional maintenance over and above that which is routinely required for other types of surface water management systems. The injection wells will require routine maintenance to ensure that manholes and inlets do not become clogged. Limiting Condition No. 8 of the Permit requires that the surface water management system, including the injection wells, be maintained. At the hearing, the SFWMD proposed that a condition be added to the Permit to further clarify the maintenance requirements. A condition requiring long-term maintenance would be desirable and reasonable. A new special condition should be added to the Permit requiring long-term maintenance of grass swales and inspections of injection wells for clogging. Acceptable language for such a condition would be: SPECIAL CONDITION NO. 15 The permittee shall provide long-term maintenance of the surface water management system, encompassing the injection wells, including, but not limited to, (a) maintenance of the vegetation in the grass swales and detention ponds and (b) routine inspections of wells and discharge structures for clogging. Water Quality Criteria As noted above, there is no designed system for surface water management and/or water quality pretreatment at the Site in its undeveloped state. Surface water run-off that can not be managed by the City of Key West's storm water management system collects in roads adjacent to the Site, resulting in adverse water quality and quantity impacts to adjacent land and receiving waters. The applicable water quality criteria, contained in Rule 40E-4.301, Florida Administrative Code, require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that a surface water management system will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, and will not cause discharge which results in any violation of the standards and criteria of Chapter 17-302 for surface waters of the state. Rule 40E-4.301 provides that: In order to obtain a permit under this chapter, an applicant must give reasonable assurances that the surface water management system is consistent with the State Water Policy as set forth in Chapter 17-40, Florida Administrative Code (40E-4.301(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 17-40.420 provides in pertinent part: Minimum Stormwater Treatment Performance Standards. When a stormwater management system complies with rules establishing the design and performance criteria for stormwater management systems, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that such systems will comply with state water quality standards. The Department and the Districts, pursuant to Section 373.436, Florida Statutes, shall adopt rules that specify design and performance criteria for new stormwater management systems which: 1. Shall be designed to achieve at least 80 percent reduction of the average annual load of pollutants that would cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards. The Basis for Review, which is incorporated into Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, by reference, further delineates the applicable water quality permit criteria for surface water management systems. Regarding water quality criteria, the Basis for Review provides: 3.2.2.1 State standards - Projects shall be designed so that discharges will meet state water quality standards, as set forth in Chapter 17-3 [revised to 17-302], Florida Administrative Code. The SFWMD's water quality criteria do not require chemical testing of stormwater for residential projects. The SFWMD's water quality criteria require that the design of a surface water management system meet applicable design/technology based criteria. Section 3.2.2.2 of the Basis for Review contains the specific water quality criteria for the design of a surface water management system. The SFWMD allows applicants to design their surface water management system using either dry or wet detention or dry or wet retention, so long as the treatment provided by the system meets water quality and quantity criteria. Dry detention consists of a system of grass swales and vegetative- covered ponds which detain water at a predetermined rate prior to off-site discharge. Wet retention can contain canals, ditches, lakes or ponds to retain water on-site. If a system is designed to meet the criteria specified in 3.2.2.2(a) of the Basis for Review and incorporates Best Management Practices ("BMP's") for the type of system proposed, the SFWMD presumes that water quality standards will not be violated. In determining which system is appropriate for a particular site, water quantity (flooding impacts) and water quality impacts must be balanced. In some cases, water quantity concerns may preclude certain types of water quality treatment methods. At the hearing in this case, Petitioner and Intervenor suggested that retention is superior to detention in designing surface water management systems. The evidence presented in this case was insufficient to support this conclusion. In any event, this contention focuses only on water quality considerations. One drawback to retention is that it may have on-site flooding impacts. With respect to this Project, the evidence indicates that retention may not have been an acceptable alternative because of possible adverse water quantity impacts. The Navy's proposed surface water management system was designed to utilize dry detention with filtration for treatment of surface water prior to discharge into the injection wells and/or off-site. The design uses a system of grass swales and grass-covered detention ponds to detain and filter pollutants from the surface water as it makes its way through the dry detention system. The System is designed to utilize as many grass swale areas as possible to filter or treat the surface water before it reaches the detention ponds which provide further treatment. The swales restrict the flow of water to approxmiately one half to one foot per second which allows for percolation and a tremendous amount of filtration. The System utilizes the natural topography of the Site to direct water through the dry detention system to the lowest point of the Site at the corner of Eisenhower Drive and Palm Avenue. Any water which makes it to this last detention pond and is not drained into one of the injection wells can flow through the discharge structure (the Weir) at 11 CFS and ultimately make it into Garrison Bight. Petitioner and Intervenor have suggested that the design of the proposed System is defective because water discharged from the cul-de-sacs in the Project design will flow directly into detention ponds without passing over any of the grass swales. The permit criteria do not specify that all surface water must contact grass swales prior to reaching a detention pond. While greater filtration is achieved the longer the run-off remains in the system, the evidence established that the detention ponds by themselves provide sufficient water quality treatment. With respect to all but one of the cul-de-sacs, the water must pass through at least two detention ponds before it is discharged. Run-off from the cul-de-sac closest to the Weir will receive treatment only in the last discharge pond. Petitioner and Intervenor questioned whether the run- off from this last cul-de-sac will receive adequate treatment, in other words, whether the "first flush" will be adequately detained prior to discharge, especially in circumstances when the detention pond is already wet. However, the evidence was insufficient to establish that their concerns are justified and/or that this situation would constitute a violation of water quality standards. This cul-de-sac is only 100 ft in diameter and accounts for no more than 8 percent of the total run-off from the Site. After considering all of the evidence, it is concluded that the water from the cul-de-sacs will be adequately treated in accordance with the permit criteria prior to any discharge. In assessing the Navy's proposed surface water management system the following criteria from the Basis for Review are pertinent in determining whether the proposed System will provide appropriate water quality treatment: 3.2.2.2 Retention and/or detention in the overall system, including swales, lakes, canals, greenways, etc., shall be provided for one of the three following criteria or equivalent combinations thereof. . .: Wet detention volume shall be provided for the first inch of run-off from the developed project, or the total run-off of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, whichever is greater. Dry detention volume shall be provided equal to 75 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. If the receiving waterbody, is a "sensitive receiving water," which would include an Outstanding Florida Water, the following additional criteria regarding direct discharges are applicable: 3.2.2.2 d. Projects having greater than 40 percent impervious area and which discharge directly to sensitive receiving waters shall provide at least one half inch of dry detention or retention pretreatment as part of the required retention/detention. The SFWMD interprets the permitting criteria as creating a rebuttable presumption that a surface water management system that provides detention in accordance with BMP's of the first inch (1") of run-off from a Site, commonly referred to as the "first-flush", will meet state water quality standards. The "first-flush" occurs at the onset of a rainfall when most pollutants run off paved areas and percolate into the grass swales. It is an accepted design parameter that the "first flush" contains 90 percent of the pollutants which will be collected in the run-off. The 90 percent of the pollutants in the first flush are consequently retained on-site through pure percolation and never reach the discharge facility. Although Petitioner and Intervenor suggest that dry detention does not provide this degree of filtration, the evidence was insufficient to support this contention. The proposed System for this Project provides treatment for the first one inch (1") of run-off from the developed Project, thereby meeting the permitting criteria for sensitive receiving waters. Intervenor and Petitioner contend that the development of this Project will necessarily result in a larger amount of pollutants in the run-off from the Site. They argue that the Applicant has not provided reasonable assurances that capturing 90 percent of the increased level of pollutants in the first flush will meet water quality standards. As noted above, compliance with the permit criteria creates a rebuttable presumption that water quality standards will be met. Insufficient evidence was presented to overcome this rebuttable presumption. In calculating the appropriate volume for the dry detention ponds, the Project engineer used the Site's percentage of impervious area. The percentage of impervious area was determined in accordance with SFWMD criteria. The calculations do not account for any percolation from the impervious areas even though much of that run-off will pass through swales and other grassy areas of the Site. In addition, there is a built-in buffer between the berm elevation around the ponds and the expected water level in the ponds. These factors confirm that there is significant additional capacity in the ponds which is an overage or safety net. In sizing the detention ponds, the project engineer also factored in additional off-site water that will be coming on-site from Palm Avenue. This water currently ponds on Palm Avenue contributing to a recurring flooding problem in the area. This off-site water will be routed through an inlet and pumped directly into on-site detention areas thereby reducing flooding on Palm Avenue and providing some treatment for off-site run-off that was not previously treated before entering the City's stormwater system. As noted above, additional water quality criteria requirements apply to projects which discharge to an Outstanding Florida Water. These additional criteria are set forth in paragraph 40 above. Outstanding Florida Water or OFW is the designation given exclusively by the FDER to certain waterbodies in Florida which have special significance, either for ecological or recreational reasons. Outstanding Florida Waters are afforded the highest degree of water quality protection. The criteria for designation of waters as Outstanding Florida Waters is found in Chapter 17-302, Florida Administrative Code. When the SFWMD initially reviewed the Permit application for this Project, it erroneously assumed that Garrison Bight, the ultimate receiving body for the waters discharged from the project through the City stormwater system, was an OFW. Although the SFWMD applied water quality criteria for OFW's when it reviewed the subject permit application, the evidence at the hearing in this case established that Garrison Bight is not an Outstanding Florida Water. A FDER representative, qualified as an expert in the designation of Outstanding Florida Waters, testified that the Outstanding Florida Water designation does not apply to certain waterbodies that were degraded at the time of designation or did not have the significance or pristine water quality that merit special protection. The designation also does not apply to artificial waterbodies. Artificial waterbodies are defined in Rule 17-302.700(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code, as a waterbody created by dredging or excavation or by the filing in of its boundaries on at least two sides. The FDER has formally determined that Garrison Bight is not an Outstanding Florida Water because Garrison Bight is an artificial waterbody in accordance with the definition. Furthermore, Garrison Bight is the site of extensive boating and marina activities. The water quality of Garrison Bight is currently degraded in comparison to ambient conditions and offshore/unconfined water. In sum, the evidence established that proposed surface water management system meets or exceeds the current permit criteria. Consequently, the water flowing into Garrison Bight from the Site will be significantly less and much cleaner after the proposed surface water management system is installed than it currently is without a designed surface water management system.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the issuance of Surface Water Management General Permit No. 44-01785 in accordance with the Notice of Intent dated September 29, 1992 and the additional conditions noted in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1993.
The Issue Respondent Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. (JSI) filed a permit application with the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, (DER), for permission to conduct maintenance dredging in a basin associated with its shipyard operation. This permit application was made in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. In the face of DER's statement of intent to grant this permit, George H. Hodges, Jr., (Petitioner), has petitioned in protest. Therefore, the issues to be considered in this dispute concern the entitlement of JSI to the grant of an environmental permit for maintenance dredging of its shipyard basin.
Findings Of Fact DER is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the environmental protection of waters within Florida. Its authority includes regulatory powers announced in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. Certain activities involving state waters require permission from DER before they be lawfully undertaken. Among those activities are dredge projects such as contemplated by JSI in its pending request to be allowed to maintenance dredge as much as 66,000 cubic yards of material per year from its shipyard basin located in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. This is an undertaking which is envisioned by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, related to the permit responsibility of DER. It is specifically addressed by Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code, in which is found the statement of permit requirements for dredge and fill activities. JSI, the applicant, operates a facility known as Bellinger Shipyard, which is engaged in the repair and maintenance of commercial and naval vessels. This enterprise includes the drydocking of vessels upon which repairs are effected, through the use of several drydock chambers in shipyard basin. In the course of the maintenance, a technique known as "gritblasting" is employed. The purpose of this "gritblasting" is to clean the ships in anticipation of repainting. On occasion the "gritblasting" would remove all coats of paint down to the metal finish of the ship. The paints being removed contain antifouling and anticorrosive materials. Those materials have, among other properties, the ability to repel marine organisms, causing their mortality. The "gritblasting" process utilizes a material known as "black beauty." This is a waste product from firing power plant boilers and it contains iron, silica, aluminum, titanium, magnesium, lime, penta oxide (P2O5), sodium oxide, sulfur trioxide and potassium oxide. The "black beauty" is applied through the use of a pressurized system which forces the material onto the treated surface under pressure of 70 to 85 pounds per square inch. After the preparation is made, vessels under repair are repainted, and similar paint with antifouling and anticorrosive properties is reapplied. During the "gritblasting" process, dust is generated and a portion of that material finds its way into the water within the basin. Other particles being removed drop to the deck surface of the drydock. When paint is reapplied to the surface of a vessel undergoing repair, it is given the opportunity to dry and the vessel is then refloated and removed from the drydock. To do this, the drydock itself is submerged. When the vessel has exited the drydock facility, the drydock resurfaces and is allowed to dry out. The material which has been removed from the surface of the repaired vessel is then shoveled into containers and transported to an offsite sanitary landfill for disposal. This material removed includes the "gritblasting" compound and paint which has been stripped from the surface of the vessel. When the drydock is submerged following vessel servicing, the inference can be drawn that a certain amount of the materials on the drydock deck surface will be introduced into the water within the basic before the drydock is resurfaced. The arrangement for refloating the vessel is the reverse of the technique employed in lifting the vessel out of the water for maintenance. When the vessel is brought in for service, it is guided into a submerged drydock. Water is then pumped out of the hollow drydock walls and deck to raise the vessel out of the water, allowing access to the vessel, which is completely above the water surface, as is the drydock work deck. The basin in which the business activities of JSI take place is located on the western shore of the Intercoastal Waterway. The Waterway and basin are part of an estuarine system, as these water bodies are tidally influenced. The basin and the Intercoastal Waterway constitute Class III waters of Florida. The configuration of the basin is as found in JSI Exhibit 16, an aerial photograph of the site. Moving from east to west within the basin, it is approximately one thousand feet from the Intercoastal Waterway to the back of the basin in its western-most extremity. In the back area of the basin the north- south axis is 250 feet. The interface between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway on the eastern reach north-south axis is approximately 625 feet. There are no obstructions to the confluence of the Intercoastal Waterway and the eastern side of the repair basin. The southern-most reach of the basin is approximately 350 feet in length running east to west. On the eastern side of the basin there is a pier area which is roughly 360 feet north-south by 60 feet east-west. As described before, the pier is not a solid structure extending to the bottom of the water. Thus, water can be exchanged between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway beneath the pier. JSI had acquired the Bellinger Shipyard in 1974. At that time environmental permits had been issued allowing for the maintenance dredging of the basin. These permits were valid through 1975. In 1975, JSI obtained a dredge and fill permit from the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, as well as a dredge and fill permit from the United States Corps of Engineers. These permits were for a ten-year period. They allowed maintenance dredging in the amount of 66,000 cubic yards per annum and for the disposal of the dredged material in an EPA-approved offshore site. In 1980 DER confirmed the dredge and fill permit that had been obtained from the Florida Board of Trustees. This permit by DER required JSI to conduct monitoring of turbidity during dredging, but did not require employment of turbidity screens. In 1979 the Army Corps had required JSI to conduct bioassay analysis in furtherance of the federal dredge and fill permit. In the face of the results obtained in that bioassay analysis, the Army Corps continued the dredge and fill permit to JSI dating from August 14, 1980. A subsequent extension of the federal permit was given through August 14, 1986. Contemporaneous with the present permit application before DER, JSI has requested further permission from the Army Corps related to the ability to excavate as much as 66,000 cubic yards of material on an annual basis. JSI has not been cited by any regulatory agency related to water quality violations associated with its dredging activity. The present DER permit application is for renewal of the 1980 Permit No. 16-21380 and is being processed under the DER File No. 161071139. This application for permit renewal was submitted on July 16, 1985. The application requests permission to maintenance dredge for a period of ten years. If granted, it is the intention of the applicant to use a closed clam shell bucket to excavate the material in the basin. This choice is in furtherance of the suggestion of DER and is a departure from the applicant's initial intention to use an open bucket to excavate. JSI also intends to employ turbidity curtains during the dredge activities. The applicant intends to transport the dredged material to the aforementioned EPA disposal site which is at sea. In doing so, a hopper barge is propelled by a towing vessel. Both the barge and towing vessel are inspected and certified by the United States Coast Guard. The crews involved in the transport of the material are qualified and licensed. In the past, transport of the material has been done under fair weather and smooth sea conditions, and it is intended that the transportation be done in that same setting if the permit is granted. The barge would not be loaded fully, thereby minimizing spillage. This was the arrangement in the past. The United States Coast Guard will be apprised of the departure time of the voyage in transport of the material, certain activities within that transport and upon return. The hopper barge has a bottom dump which is closed during transport and is opened at the bottom in disposing the dredge material. After satisfying DER about its proposal, JSI was informed that DER intended to grant the dredge permit requested. When Petitioner, George H. Hodges, Jr., the owner of real property adjacent to the site of the project, learned of the stated intention to grant the maintenance dredging permit, he offered a timely petition in opposition to the proposed agency action. This property of Petitioner is in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. It is located north of the JSI property at issue. Petitioner's real property is connected to the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner has filed this action in opposition to the grant of the permit upon the expressed belief that the dredging activity will cause pollution at his property. In particular, it is JSI's intention at various times in the calendar year to do maintenance dredging in the entire basin. In addition to using a closed clam shell bucket, a system of turbidity barriers or curtains will be employed in segmented dredge areas. Those several locations within the basin which are cordoned off with the turbidity curtains are as depicted in JSI's Exhibit 9 admitted into evidence. The design maintenance depths for the dredging project are set forth in JSI's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence. They vary from -17 to -37.5 feet, with the greatest depth being contemplated under drydock number 1 in the northwestern corner of the basin. Near the Intercoastal Waterways the depth sought is -17 feet, transitioning to -21.5 feet moving toward the back of the basin at the western extreme and outside of the area dredged beneath drydock number 1. The depths sought under drydock numbers 2 and 3 are -26.5 feet and -20 feet respectively. These desired elevations correspond to conditions at mean low water. The tidal range in the Intercoastal Waterway adjacent to the basin, which would promote an influence in the basin proper, is in the neighborhood of 4-foot intervals, with two tidal cycles a day. This would mean, as example, that at the high tide range, the shallowest design depths for dredging of -17 feet become -21 feet in the transition from mean low water to mean high water. Those 4-foot variations would pertain to the other design depths contemplated in the dredging as described in the preceding paragraph as well. The turbidity barriers contemplated for use will extend from the surface through the water column to depths near the bottom. See JSI Exhibits 4 and 9. It is desirable, according to Dr. Gregory Powell, witness for JSI, a reliable expert in describing the effectiveness and use of turbidity curtains, to have those curtains extend to an area just above the bottom. Dr. Powell's education includes a Masters Degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering and a Ph.D. Degree in engineering mechanics, with emphasis on coastal and oceanographic engineering. In consideration of his remarks, under the influence of high tide there could be as much as a 4 foot gap between the curtain and the bottom. Powell and other experts who offered testimony agreed that turbidity screens can have effectiveness in areas of low current velocity, assuming the proper installation, maintenance and extension to a location near the bottom of the water body. If mismanaged, turbidity screens are not effective in controlling turbidity. Moreover, they are less effective in areas where significant current velocities are experienced. This would include the circumstance in which a foot and a half or more per second of flow was being experienced, according to Dr. Powell, whose opinion is accepted on this point. He also indicated that the quiescent areas in the basin, toward the back of the basin or western dimension of the basin, would show a flow regime in a rate of one centimeter per second. This expression is credited. Although, as described by Dr. Powell, the currents in the Intercoastal Waterway are moving at a rate approximating nine feet per second on ebb time at the bridge located on the Intercoastal Waterway to the south of the project site, these current velocities are not expected in the area where the dredging is occurring. Dr. Powell is correct in this assessment. As he describes, and in acceptance of that testimony, eddies from the current from the Intercoastal Waterway at peak flood tide could come into the basin and temporarily show velocities of one foot per second; however, these velocities are within the acceptable range of performance of the turbidity barrier. Dr. Powell's conclusion that wind would have no significant effect on the current velocity, given the depth of this basin, is also accepted. The remaining flow regime in the basin is not found to be a detriment to the function of the turbidity barriers. The use of turbidity curtains in this project is not found to be a "placebo" to placate DER as suggested by Erik J. Olson, engineering expert who testified in behalf of the Petitioner The monitoring that is intended in the course of the dredging activities would call for examination of background turbidity levels at three sites in the Intercoastal Waterway prior to commencing of dredging and twice daily at each of these sites during dredging. Should a violation of state water quality standards for turbidity be detected, dredging will cease until the problem with turbidity can be rectified. To provide ongoing assurances of compliance with water quality standards, JSI will analyze the sediment in the basin for the parameters of cadmium, copper, aluminum, lead, mercury, oil and grease every two years. Dr. Powell, expert in engineering and recognized as an expert in the matter of transport of the resuspended sediment associated with the dredging, as well as David Bickner, the project review specialist for DER, believe that the use of the closed clam shell bucket technique and employment of siltation screens or barriers, together with turbidity monitoring, will effectively protect against turbidity violations in the Intercoastal Waterway adjacent to the basin. This opinion is accepted. Bickner brings to his employment a Bachelor of Science degree in biology and a Master of Science degree in ecology. Bickner identified the principal concern of DER related to this project as the possibility of release of resuspended sediments into the Intercoastal Waterway. With the advent of the techniques described in the previous paragraph, only minimal changes in background conditions related to turbidity are expected. Although there would be turbidity violations within the confines of the areas where the dredging occurs, the principal influence of that turbidity will be confined in those regions. This speaks to dredge areas I, 2 and 3. According to Bickner, whose opinion is accepted, the turbidity changes within the dredge areas in relationship to background conditions do not require a mixing zone permit, nor do they constitute a basis for denial of the permit. As alluded to before, and as described by Dr. Powell, the basic nature of the basin in question is one of quiescent conditions with low current velocity. He points out that the layout of the basin is such that it is a sediment trap allowing the deposit of silt, in particular in the deeper sections of the basin near the western side. The greatest influence by resuspension of sediment in the dredging activities can be expected in the back portions of the basin and it is in this area that the silt barrier can be expected to be most efficient, based upon Powell's remarks. Dr. Powell indicated that there is the expectation of increased efficiency in turbidity control when a closed clam shell bucket is used, as opposed to the open style of clam shell bucket. Those efficiencies range from 30 to 70 per cent. There is some risk of increased turbidity near the bottom of the water column in the use of a closed clam shell bucket, and for that reason the applicant should monitor the activities of the operator of the excavation machinery to guard against inordinate disturbance of the area being excavated. On balance, the closed clam shell bucket is a superior technique to the open style of clam shell bucket excavation when those alternatives are compared. As Dr. Powell explained, the segmentation of the dredge area allows the resuspended sediment to be confined in more discrete circumstances and to be controlled. The location of the silt barriers behind the pier structure guard against the effects of eddying. The silt barriers can be properly anchored and will not be unduly influenced by current velocity. Dr. Powell believes that the use of silt barriers, taking into account a low velocity of current in the basin, and the proper deployment of the siltation screen could bring about a reduction of the resuspended solids by 80 to 90 per cent on the outside of the barrier. To calculate the influence or the environmental significance of that remaining 10 to 20 per cent of resuspended solids at the Intercoastal Waterway, Dr. Powell testified that the suspended load behind the silt curtain resulting from the dredging is expected to average from 100 milligrams per liter to a peak amount of 500 milligrams per liter. He believes that, depending on which methods of calculation is used, the dilution factor in the Intercoastal Waterway ranges from 330:1 to 600:1. In using an environmentally conservative assessment, that is 80 per cent effectiveness of the silt curtain with a 330:1 ratio, Powell calculated that the release of resuspended materials into the Intercoastal Waterway would be approximately .3 to 1.5 milligrams per liter. This translates to less than 1 NTU against background conditions. This result would not exceed the 29 NTU limit against background that is described as the standard for turbidity control. Dr. Powell's opinion of turbidity results based upon the dredge activity is accepted. There is exchange of water between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway and to accommodate this influence, the turbidity curtains would be placed in such a fashion that they would not compete with the ebb and flow of the tide. Dr. Powell's assessment of the circumstance in describing the effectiveness of turbidity barriers takes into account the tidal conditions and the inappropriateness of trying to have the silt curtains prohibit the flow conditions during these tidal changes. In order to promote maximum effectiveness of the turbidity barriers during the entire course of excavation of materials, the length of, the silt screen must be adjusted as desired elevations are approached. Erik J. Olson is an expert in civil engineering with an emphasis on hydraulics and the holder of a Masters Degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering. As alluded to before, he questions the validity of the use of siltation barriers as an effective protection against the implications of turbidity. He properly points out that the curtains will not extend to the region of the interface of the basin and the water column at all times. He describes the exchange of water between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway, to include the unrestricted sediment transport beneath the turbidity curtain. He believes that wind can cause changes in current velocity as great as .2 foot per second, activities within the basin an additional .3 foot per second, and eddying .3 foot per second. All of these taken together do not exceed the range of effective response of the turbidity barriers. On balance, Olson's criticism of the benefit of turbidity curtains is unconvincing. Arlynn Quinton White, Jr., who holds a Bachelor of Science Degree, a Master of Science Degree in biology and a Ph.D. in matters related to marine biology, offered his testimony in support of Petitioner. He believes that as much as 2 to 3 per cent of the resuspended sediment related to the dredging activities would reach the Intercoastal Waterway under the best of conditions. It is difficult to translate that testimony into a measurement of changes in turbidity levels against ambient conditions in the Intercoastal Waterway. In any event, as already indicated, the changes in turbidity levels are not expected to exceed 29 NTU against background. It is evident that the turbidity curtains are necessary and their proper use must be assured to protect against problems associated with turbidity and the implications of the constituents of the resuspended particulate matter related to possible toxicity. Therefore, the close monitoring suggested in the statement of intent to grant the dredge permit is viable. Another matter associated with the implications of turbidity pertains to the fact that when the dredge material has been resuspended, as much as two days could pass before the basin returns to background conditions, given the high content of silt with its attached metals. This becomes significant given the uncertainty of the location of the dredge equipment during the course of excavation, i.e., inside the barrier or outside the barrier. Final choice about the placement of the dredge equipment will have to be made at the time of the excavation. Should the dredge equipment be inside of the cordoned area while excavation is occurring, it would be necessary to allow turbidity conditions to achieve background levels before opening up the barrier for the exit of the hopper barge which contains the excavated material. Otherwise, the estimates as to the influence of the dredging activities in the Intercoastal Waterway are unduly optimistic. Likewise, if the excavation platform is placed outside of the work site, that is to say, on the outside of the siltation curtain, extreme caution must be used to avoid spillage of the excavated material when being loaded onto the hopper barge. The occasions in which the excavation is being made from this side of the barrier should be minimized. These safeguards are important because any changes in sediment loading within the Intercoastal Waterway promote an influence in the area immediately adjacent to the basin and other sites within the Intercoastal Waterway as well. The subject of the use of a hydraulic dredge as an alternative to excavation by use of a closed clam shell bucket was examined in remarks by the witnesses appearing at hearing. Olson believes that there are hydraulic dredges which can achieve the design depth contemplated by the project and which equipment could fit inside the basin area. This is contrary to the opinion of witnesses for the applicant and DER who do not believe that the hydraulic dredging equipment which would be necessary to achieve the design depths would fit into the basin area. On balance, the record does not establish that such equipment with the appropriate capability and size does exist. More importantly, the proposed method of excavation is environmentally acceptable when examined in the context of the permit sought in this case. Finally, it was not essential for the applicant to make a detailed investigation of availability of hydraulic dredging equipment and it is not determined that failure to make this investigation warrants the denial of the requested permit. Although an hydraulic dredge is more desirable from the standpoint that it causes less turbidity through resuspension of sediments, it is not the only plausible method of excavation in this instance. Raymond D. Schulze testified in behalf of JSI. He holds a Bachelor of Science Degree and a Master of Science Degree in environmental engineering sciences. In particular, he established the fact that the amount of resuspended solids that would be introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway associated with the dredging activity would not result in the smothering of organisms or to clogging of gills of fish. In addition to the possible problems with turbidity, there is the additional issue of violation of water quality standards in the several parameters associated with concentrations of metals in the water column within the basin and in the sediments or related parameters such as dissolved oxygen and biological integrity. Having considered the testimony, the facts do not point to water quality violations for any parameters occurring in the Intercoastal Waterway as a result of the dredging. To arrive at this factual impression, the testimony of Dr. Pollman and Schulze is relied upon. Water quality sampling done by JSI in locations within the basin and in the Intercoastal Waterway, that by Dr. Pollman and Schulze, supports their impression of the acceptability of the dredge activities. This water quality data was admitted as JSI's Exhibit 18. Additionally, the field conditions existing at the time of testing, to include water temperature, weather conditions, tidal cycle, ph and dissolved oxygen were also made known. This water quality data and other information examined by these witnesses points to the fact that no increases in concentrations of metals are occurring within the Intercoastal Waterway as a result of the business activities of the applicant, nor are they to be expected while dredging operations are under way. Dr. Pollman correctly identifies the fact that there will not be significant degradation of water quality, above DER's minimum standards, related to the Intercoastal Waterway based upon the dredging activities within the basin, dealing with the water quality parameters of mercury, zinc, cadmium, chromium, lead, aluminum, iron and copper, substances which are within the basin. Dr. Pollman also examined sediment data collected by DER, and that data tended to confirm his assessment of the influences of the dredging activity related to these parameters. Dr. Pollman does not believe that metal concentrations contained in the sediment of the basin are leaching into the water column in quantities sufficient to cause violation of water quality standards. His opinion is accepted. Pollman had collected water quality samples in the two locations where the greatest siltation rate was expected and as a consequence the greatest concentration of metals would be expected. The water quality samples were taken at several depths to reach an opinion as to the matter of leaching of metals into the water column and the possibility of those metals dissolving in the water column. If leaching had been occurring, a concentration of metals expressed as a gradient would be expected. The greatest concentration in this instance would be near the sediment interface with the water column. No such gradation was detected and the idea of leaching was ruled out. Bickner's testimony established that testing for the exact amount of iron present at the dredge site was not required, given the nature of the iron source being introduced into the water within the basin. Bickner did not find that type of iron to be toxic. As stated before, Pollman agrees that no violation of state water quality standards as a result of the presence of iron associated with the maintenance dredging should be expected. There is some data which shows water quality violation for mercury in the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway. Subsequent water samples collected by Schulze in the westerly portion of the basis did not show detectable levels of mercury. Moreover, data taken by Pollman and Schulze and compared with the DER sediment data shows that the concentration levels of mercury are greater in the Intercoastal Waterway than in the basin, thereby suggesting that there is no concentration gradient for mercury which would lead to the belief that the basin contributes to the amount of mercury found in the Intercoastal Waterway, nor is the mercury believed to be leaching into the water column in the basin. The explanation of the differences in measurements of the amount of mercury in the basin, depending upon the point in time at which analysis was made, may be attributable to a natural phenomenon, given numerous sources of mercury within the environment. Whatever the explanation of these changes, Dr. Pollman does not believe that the release of mercury associated with the resuspended sediments that may find their way into the Intercoastal Waterway would show a violation of the state water quality standard for mercury in that water body and his opinion is credited. Data collected by Pollman and Schulze did not show water quality violations for aluminum and the DER test data described before indicated aluminum levels lower in the basin than in the Intercoastal Waterway. Some data collected by Technical Services, Inc., an environmental consulting firm in Jacksonville, Florida, which was reviewed by Pollman, Schulze, and Bickner showed a substantial violation of the water quality standard related to aluminum in sediment sampling that was done. The origin of that amount of aluminum found on that occasion was not clear. It is possible, as described by Bickner, Pollman and Schulze, that the level detected In the Technical Service report could have occurred based upon natural phenomena such as storm water runoff from uplands. Bickner also questioned the findings of Technical Service and felt like the determination might be influenced by some intervening circumstance which would promote the need for re-analyzing that parameter. Whatever the explanation of the findings in the Technical Service report, it does not point to any water quality violation of the standard related to aluminum based upon the dredging activities, given the limited amount of total suspended solids that would be introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway. Schulze, in his assessment of the implications of metal concentrations in the sediment transported to the Intercoastal Waterway, did not find them to cause concern about toxicity to marine life in the Intercoastal Waterway. This point of view is accepted. In trying to understand the implications of metal concentrations, Schulze believed that the biologically available fractions of those metals in the sediment is not very high, and when the dilution of the sediments which occurs in these circumstances is examined, no toxicity is expected. Moreover, as Dr. Pollman described related to the parameter aluminum, it is not a toxic material at the ph levels found in the basin, and the resuspension during dredging will not cause it to gain toxicity. This opinion of Dr. Pollman is supported by Bickner and Schulze. The opinion of Dr. White that the amount of aluminum, copper and zinc within the sediment found in the basin would eventuate in the violation of water quality standards for those parameters when introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway is rejected. The information available to Pollman, Schulze and Bickner which describes their opinion about water quality standards was sufficient to reach an opinion, the position of Petitioner's witness Sanford Young, holder of a Bachelor of Science Degree in civil engineering and a Master of Science Degree in zoology notwithstanding. As Bickner indicated in his testimony, it is essential that an applicant give reasonable assurances of compliance with all parameters listed in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, dealing with water quality. However, this does not mean that testing must be done for each parameter set forth in that chapter. Reasonable assurance has been given that water quality parameters as identified in that chapter will not be violated. Bickner indicates the biological integrity standard is not one of concern in that given the nature of business operations within the basin, there is no expectation of a stable benthic community which might be disturbed by dredging. From the remarks of Schulze, there is no prospect of danger to benthic communities within the Intercoastal Waterway. These impressions by Bickner and Schulze are accepted. Under the facts of the case, the failure of the DER permit appraisers to discover benthic organisms in the sample grabbed at the site is not unexpected. There is also some question about whether that sample is representative of the circumstance at the site, given the limited sampling. On the topic of normalization of the DER data which was described in the course of the hearing and is identified by Dr. Pollman, the value of that information is seen as establishing the relative quantities of certain metals within the basin as compared with other sites throughout the Intercoastal Waterway. Twenty-one different locations were involved in this analysis. Concentration ratios using aluminum to normalize the data are as reflected in JSI's Exhibit 17 admitted into evidence. The significance of this information as it grossly describes whether the basin routinely contributes to increases in the amounts of these metals within the Intercoastal Waterway. Overall, basin activities are not shown to have promoted such an outcome. This normalization comparison does not address the issue of site specific water quality violations; however, no such violations are expected associated with the dredging activities within the basin as it relates to violations in the adjacent Intercoastal Waterway. Schulze had made sampling related to dissolved oxygen within the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway. As Schulze describes, the levels of dissolved oxygen seem to be at their lowest point just prior to the dawn hours. Sampling which he did was done at 5:00 a.m. in order to obtain the lowest dissolved oxygen readings. Three sites were sampled within the basin and an additional site was sampled in the Intercoastal Waterway. Readings were taken at varying depths at each site to gain an impression of the overall water column. The mean reading for the circumstance was in excess of the required range for state water quality, that is 4.0 per million. Having considered the evidence, no problems with dissolved oxygen are expected in that deficit contribution is in the range of .1 milligram per liter, per Pollman. In addition, Dr. Powell, through modeling, examined the implications of long-term dredging activities on the topic of dissolved oxygen. He employed field data gathered by Schulze in this assessment. This modeling established that decreases in dissolved oxygen levels would range from .1 to .15 milligrams per liter. Given the average of 4.5 parts per million oxygen in the basin at present, the incremental decreases in dissolved oxygen levels related to the dredging would not pose a problems with state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen other than short-term effects in the immediate vicinity of the dredge area, which is an acceptable deviation. As the Petitioner urges in its fact proposal, a 1983 report of Technical Services, Inc., JSI Exhibit 4, and a 1985 report of that firm, JSI Exhibit 7, were made available as part of the application. Officials within Technical Services, Inc. did not appear at the hearing and offer testimony related to the specific findings found in those reports. This information was used by the experts who did testify on behalf of the applicant, in particular Dr. Pollman, as data to question, his assumptions made about the implications of the project in terms of water quality concerns. Pollman also utilized DER data taken from a source known as Storette, and this pertains to the 21 sampling stations involved in the preparation of JSI Exhibit 17, the graphing document related to concentrations of various metals. Again, this was in furtherance of the basic underlying opinion which Pollman had about the project. The Storette data as such was not offered into evidence. Witnesses for the Petitioner, namely Olson and White, were aware of the two reports of Technical Services, Inc. and the use of the DER Storette data and offered their criticism of the project taking into account this information. Petitioner points out that there is no indication as to how far below the sediment/water interface the Technical Services, Inc., and DER sediment samples related to reports of the consultant and the Storette information of DER were extracted. Therefore, it only reflected one portion of the sediment at a depth of extraction. A more complete understanding of the sediment characteristics would have been shown through a core sample, especially in the area to be dredged, but that understanding was not essential. The suggestion by the Petitioner that it was inappropriate to normalize data for purposes of describing the relative concentrations of the metals parameters is not accepted. The preparation of JSI's Exhibit 17 does not point to abnormally high amounts of aluminum, such that the use of aluminum as a known commodity in carrying out the normalization would be contraindicated. As identified by the petitioner in its proposal, sediment sizes within the strata found in the basin depicts higher percentage of silt and clay-size sediments in the back end of the basin with lesser amounts of the silt- and clay-size sediments in the southern reach of the basin and at the intersection of the basin with the Intercoastal Waterway. The smaller the particles, such as silt and clay, will remain suspended for a longer period of time and have a tendency to promote bonding with heavy metal. Nonetheless, this information does not change the impression that the turbidity barriers will be effective. The 1983 Technical Services, Inc., information related to the settling of resuspended sediment and similar information imparted in the 1985 report by that organization tend to confirm that approximately two days should be necessary to allow the area of excavation to return to background conditions related to turbidity. This is in corroboration of remarks by Dr. Powell. These time projections are not found to be inadequate when taking into account other factors such as tidal changes, boat traffic, other activities within the basin, wind and weather events. As White described, the antifouling properties of the paint involved in the business activity of the applicant can be expected to adversely impact any larval forms of marine organisms when introduced into the basin. Nonetheless, this toxicity is not expected to pose a danger to marine organisms in the Intercoastal Waterway given the percentage of resuspended sediment that will escape capture by the sediment barriers and the dilution factor before introduction of those resuspended sediments into the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner questions the acceptability of evidence of the findings set forth by E G & G Bionomics, a firm which performed an examination to determine existing diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates. Those results are reported in Petitioner's Exhibit 13, a 1980 report. They were not accepted as evidence of the specific findings within that report in that they were not the subject of discussion by persons who authored that report. The use was limited to corroboration of the opinion by Dr. Pollman and Schulze as to water quality considerations and they were not Crucial to their opinions. Moreover, it was not necessary for the applicant to perform a more recent bioassay in order to give reasonable assurance to DER concerning water quality matters or to establish the implications of the influence of contaminants within the sediment found in the basin related to benthic macroinvertebrates. The biological integrity of the basin area was at risk prior to the proposal for maintenance dredging. The relevant inquiry is the influence of the dredging activities on the biological integrity in the Intercoastal Waterway and those activities do not place organisms within the Intercoastal Waterway in peril. Any synergistic aspects of metals which act as toxins, for example, the increase in the aggregate value of the toxicity of zinc and cadmium, compared to their individual implications as toxins, will not present problems with water quality in the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner takes issue with the proposed disposition of the dredge material at an ocean site. While an appropriate upland disposal site would be preferred, it is not mandated. The approved EPA disposal site within federal jurisdiction is acceptable. Petitioner in its fact proposals found at paragraphs 36-39 (incorporated by this reference) points out violations of water quality standards for cadmium, mercury, and aluminum, and other possible violations of the standard for mercury. This information does not cause a change of opinion about the acceptability of the project in terms of reasonable assurances. There is no indication that oils and greases will present a problem related to water quality standards. The project is not contrary to public interest in that: (a) the project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare or the property of others; (b) the project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitat; (c) the project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion of shoaling; (d) the project will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; (e) the project will be of a temporary nature; (f) the project will not adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; (g) the project is in no other way contrary to the public interest. The purpose of this fact finding does not include the issue of whether there are ongoing violations of state water quality standards associated with the business activity of the applicant, that not being the subject of the hearing. In any event, the testimony of Dr. Pollman established that the operations of JSI are not causing water quality problems associated with the parameters of cadmium, copper, aluminum, mercury, lead, chromium, tin, zinc or iron related to the Intercoastal Waterway. The influences of the business activities associated with those parameters within the basin are not understood when the evidence presented is examined but are not found to be essential to the resolution of this dispute.
Recommendation Having considered the facts, and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That DER issue a final order which grants the requested maintenance dredging permit in keeping with the safeguards described in the fact finding of this recommended order. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of October 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0365 Having examined the proposed facts submitted by the parties, those proposals have been found as fact with the exception of the following which are distinguished: Petitioner's facts Paragraph 1: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 2: The first sentence in this paragraph is rejected because the fact is not found within the indicated exhibits, nor can that fact be fairly inferred. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15: Except for the last sentence in that latter paragraph are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 15: The last sentence: Contrary to facts found. Paragraph 18: The last sentence: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 27: Contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 28, 29, 30 and 31: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 32: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 33 and 34: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 35: Contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 40, 41 and 42: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraphs 44, 45: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 47: The first two sentences are information that is not sufficiently credible to allow application to the issues of the present case. Paragraphs 48, 49, 50 and 51: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 52: Reject as fact. Paragraph 54: Contrary to facts found. Paragraph 55: Not necessary to dispute resolution. JSI and DER facts Paragraph 2: Pertaining to sentence 8 and the last phrase within sentence 11; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 3: As to the first sentence, fourth sentence and seventh sentence; Not necessary to fact resolution. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 to the colon in paragraph 6: Not necessary to dispute resolution. The remaining portions of paragraph 6 are subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 10: as to the last two sentences; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 13: As to the next to the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 14: As to the fourth sentence and the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 20: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 21: Sentence 3 is subordinate to fact finding sentence 4 is not necessary to dispute resolution; sentences 5 and 6 are subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 22: Next to the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38 and 41: Subordinate to fact finding, except the comments in the last sentence of paragraph 41 related to the operations of JSI causing or contributing elevated concentrations of parameters within the basin which is not found as fact. Paragraphs 42, 43 and 44: Subordinate to fact finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Chris Bryant, Esquire OERTEL AND HOFFMAN, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Thomas M. Baumer, Esquire Deborah Barton, Esq. GALLAGHER, BAUMER, MIKALS, BRADFORD, CANNON AND WALTER, P.A. 252-5 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Bradford L. Thomas, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Celebrity Resorts, Inc., (Celebrity) is entitled to a Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) permit for a surface management system to serve its proposed development in Marion County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact PROPOSED PROJECT Celebrity is seeking a District MSSW permit to construct a surface water management system to serve a proposed recreation vehicle (RV) park. The facility is to be located in northern Marion County on the southern border of Orange Lake, an Outstanding Florida Water. The entire site is within the geographic boundaries of the District. The RV park is to be located on 75 acres of land, and is to contain 372 RV and "park model" sites, four bath houses, a clubhouse, and an expanded boathouse. There is a "break" in the watersheds of the Celebrity property caused by a ridge across the approximate center of the project site. The effect of this "break" is that approximately one-half of the property drains toward the lake while the approximate southerly half of the property drains into an independent depression creating a watershed separate from the lake. Parts of Marion County and Alachua county have been designated as Sensitive Karst Area Basin by the District. The project site is located in the designated area. The existing land use is open pasture. The property was previously used for citrus groves. STANDING Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Area is an unincorporated group of approximately 76 individuals who want to prevent pollution of Orange Lake. Of the 76 members, three members were present and testified at the hearing. The members attending the hearing were an artist (Riley), a photographer (Suto), and a bass guide (Solomon). Ms. Suto testified that she lives about 1 to 1 1/2 miles from the site. Ms. Riley testified that she lives next door to Ms. Suto and determined that to be over two miles away from the site. Mr. Solomon testified that he lives on the southeast side of Orange Lake approximately 1 to 1 1/2 miles from the project site. No witness testified that any member has a property interest in the subject property. Of the members who testified, none use the subject property. There was no testimony that other members use the property. Twenty-six members wrote letters of concern to the District. Ms. Suto testified to the existence of high levels of lead in her well water. WATER QUANTITY The existing land use, pasture, was used to determine the pre- development peak rate and volume of discharge. The existing surface drainage of the 75-acre project site is divided into two basins. On the north side of the property, the surface water flows toward Orange Lake. This basin is designated on the plans, sheet 3 of 16, by a "2." The south portion of the property is contained within the landlocked drainage basin which is designated on the plans, sheet 3 of 16, by a "1." The post-development flow of surface water will be in the same direction as the pre-development flow. There are no proposed development plans or encroachments into the 100- year floodplain. Therefore, there is no increase in potential for damages to off-site property or persons caused by floodplain development or encroachment, retardance, acceleration, displacement, or diversion of surface waters. There is no reduction in natural storage areas and, in fact, the proposed project increases the natural storage on site. Drainage Basin 2 The District's criterion for systems discharging to basins with an outlet is that the post-development peak rate of discharge for the 25-year, 24- hour storm event shall not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The District's criteria also require that the post-development volume of discharge not exceed the pre-development volume of discharge. The retention system which ultimately discharges to Orange Lake is designed to retain the entire 25-year, 24-hour storm event through the series of basins on site. The pre-development peak rate of discharge for the drainage basin which flows to the lake is 55 cubic feet per second (cfs) during the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The post-development peak rate of discharge from drainage basin 2 is 4 cfs. The post-development peak rate of discharge is less than the pre- development peak rate of discharge. Runoff from each RV site will be collected in an individual, ten-inch- deep retention basin. Runoff from the road will be collected in roadside swales. Runoff from the clubhouse, country store, and associated parking lots will be conveyed to drainage retention area (DRA) No. 8. The individual retention basins have the capacity to retain the 25- year, 24-hour storm event without discharging. Any surface water discharges from the individual retention basins in Basins 2A, 2B, and 2C as designated on sheet 3 of 16 will flow to DRA Nos. 4, 5, and 7, respectively. In Basin 2D, runoff from the road and RV park model sites will flow to DRA No. 6. The discharge from DRA No. 6 in the 25-year, 24-hour storm will be zero (0) cfs. In larger storms, any discharge from DRA No. 6 will flow to DRA No. 7. In the event DRA No. 7 overflows, the runoff will flow to DRA No. 5. Basins 2G and 2F are located around two existing sinkholes which currently collect stormwater runoff. In the proposed project, Basins 2G and 2F continue to drain the same area as pre-development. However, additional impervious surfaces will be placed in the drainage area. For this reason, an additional three to five feet of clean fill will be placed in the bottom of each sinkhole for filtration purposes. Basins 2H and 2I are less than one acre and currently drain off site. Berms are proposed around the property line at the basin to keep the stormwater on site. Basins 2H and 2I retain 3/4 inch of runoff over the individual basin. The runoff from Basins 2E1 and 2E flows to DRA No. 8 via a drainage swale. DRA No. 8 will retain 3/4 inch of runoff from the drainage area and is an off-line retention basin. The DRA No. 8 is equipped with a diversion box which allows the 3/4 inch of runoff to enter the DRA and then diverts the runoff from larger storms around the DRA so that the treatment volume of runoff (3/4 inch) continues to be treated in DRA No. 8 and does not mix with and discharge from DRA No. 8 during larger storms. Drainage Basin 1 Drainage Basin 1 as designated on plan sheet 3 of 16 is a landlocked basin which does not discharge to Orange Lake. In Drainage Basin 1, as in Basin 2, the runoff from the RV sites flows to the individual retention basins which retain the 25-year, 96-hour storm event. The runoff from the road flows to swales. Overflow from the basins and swales flow to the DRAs. Drainage Basin 1 does not discharge during the 100- year, 24-hour or the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, pre-development or post- development Drainage Basin 1 is designed to retain the 100-year, 24-hour storm, which is an 11 inch storm event. Drainage Basin 1 is also designed to retain the 25-year, 96-hour storm event. The 25-year, 96-hour storm event is 143% of the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. WATER QUALITY Design Criteria The District's design criteria for water quality are set out in Section 40C-42.025, Florida Administrative Code. The District's retention criteria require that a proposed system have a treatment/pollution abatement volume of 1/2 inch of runoff from the site. For discharges to an OFW, the pollution abatement volume is increased by fifty percent. Therefore, the system must have the volume to retain 3/4 inch of runoff from the site. Each retention basin retains a minimum of 3/4 inch of runoff from the site. The District's criteria regarding quantity of water discharged require a larger volume of runoff to be retained than the District's criteria regarding quality. Therefore, the retention system exceeds the District's criteria regarding quality in order to meet the criteria regarding quantity. The District's retention criteria require that the basin recover the treatment volume within 72 hours. Most of the retention basins retain more than the required treatment volume of 3/4 inch, and most will also recover, or become dry, within 72 hours. The retention basins are capable of being effectively maintained in that the side slopes and bottom of the basins can easily accommodate mowing equipment. For erosion control, staked hay bales and silt screens will be utilized on site during construction to prevent the off-site transport of soil material. Following construction, the retention basins will be vegetated with sod to prevent erosion. The District's criteria require that facilities which receive stormwater runoff from areas with greater than fifty percent of impervious surface shall include a baffle or other device for preventing oil and grease from leaving the system. DRA Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 8 are equipped with an oil and grease removal device called a baffle. The baffle is an acceptable engineering design for the removal of oil and grease from stormwater in a retention basin. The facility operation is uncomplicated. If the individual basins did fill due to a storm event greater than the 25-year, 24-hour or the 25-year, 96- hour in the landlocked basin, they would simply overflow into a DRA. No structures are involved to prevent flooding in large storm events. Water Quality Impacts The individual retention basin at each RV site is considered off-line because it does not discharge in the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. DRA Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are considered off-line because they do not discharge during the design storm. DRA No. 8 is considered off-line because of the diversion box which provides for the retention of the treatment volume and diversion of the larger storms. Off-line retention systems generally show greater pollutant treatment efficiencies than other types of stormwater treatment. The first 1/2 inch of runoff or the "first flush" of rainfall contains ninety percent of the pollutants from the site. SURFACE WATER Utilizing information and methodologies generally accepted by experts in the field of water quality, the District analyzed and projected the average surface water and groundwater quality of the discharge from the surface water management system for the proposed project. No data on runoff concentrations currently exists for RV parks. This analysis was based on a review of existing data on untreated runoff concentrations from three multifamily developments and one highway study. Because data from studies of multifamily residential and highway projects was used, the District's estimates of the untreated runoff concentrations for this project are conservative in that the actual concentrations are probably less than estimated. The District's analysis of the average quality of the discharge from the proposed system was also based on projecting the treatment efficiencies associated with the system. This analysis was done by reviewing data from documented studies previously conducted to ascertain the treatment efficiency of retention methods of stormwater treatment. Generally, retention of the first 1/2 inch of runoff removes eighty percent of the pollutants. On this project, a treatment efficiency of ninety-five percent was assumed based on the fact that the system is off-line treatment and a minimum of 3/4 inch of runoff from the site will be retained in the basins prior to discharge. The expected average untreated runoff concentrations were then educed by the expected treatment efficiencies to project post-treatment water quality of the discharge from the proposed system. These numbers were then compared to Chapter 17-302, Florida Administrative Code, water quality standards for Class III water bodies, and ambient water quality in Orange Lake. Orange Lake is classified as an OFW. Therefore, the proposed project cannot be permitted if it will cause degradation of that water body. The background data or ambient water quality data for phosphorous and nitrogen was taken from the Orange Lake Biological Report by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission in 1986. The ambient water quality for the other parameters in Table 2 of District Exhibit 2 was computed using eight years of data from a District monitoring station on Orange Lake. The projected average concentration for each constituent in the discharge from the system is less than the ambient water quality of Orange Lake. Therefore, the proposed surface water discharge will not violate state water quality standards in waters of the state. The post-development pollutant loading rates should be equal to or better than the pollutant loading rates from the use of the property as citrus or pastureland because the runoff is being retained on site and treated before being discharged. GROUNDWATER Groundwater discharges were reviewed by assessing the type of soil below the retention basin and the distance to the water table. The soil on the site contains some organic matter which is beneficial for treatment purposes. Based on the borings submitted by Celebrity, the water table, if any, is five feet or more below the bottom of any proposed retention basin. Runoff in the basin will percolate through the soil. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus will be taken up by the vegetation in the bottom of the basins. Metals will bind to the soil material below the basin. Oils and greases will be broken down through microbial degradation into nontoxic material. Groundwater discharges from the proposed system will not violate any applicable state groundwater quality standards. These standards will be met within the first three feet below the treatment basins. The standards will also be met by the time the groundwater discharge moves to the edge of the zone of discharge which is at the property boundary. The discharge from the proposed Celebrity project will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards in the receiving waters. SINKHOLES Sinkholes may form on the site. Sinkholes that form will probably be "cover subsidence" sinkholes. Cover subsidence sinkholes are those in which a void below the surface fills with the soil from above, causing a depression in the ground surface. There are four relict sinkholes on site. They are cover subsidence sinkholes. The sinkhole nearest the lake has water in the bottom. Stormwater runoff is directed away from the sinkhole. Any water which enters the sinkhole from the land surface or above will enter from the sky. The District has proposed criteria for stormwater systems in designated Sensitive Karst Area Basins. Those criteria are that 1) the water in the basins shall be no deeper than ten feet deep; 2) there should be at least three feet of unconsolidated material between the bottom of the basin and the top of the water table; and 3) the basins should be fully vegetated. The District currently applies these criteria as policy. In this project, the basins are shallow, ranging from ten inches deep at the RV sites to 2 1/2 feet in the DRAs. The basins have at least three feet of unconsolidated material between the bottom of the basin and the top of the water table. In the soil borings performed by Celebrity, the water table was shown to exist between five and fifty feet below land surface. The proposed project design meets or exceeds the proposed criteria for Sensitive Karst Area Basins. The basins will be fully vegetated or sodded with grass. Lineations or lineaments are solution features which may indicate a fracture of the underlying limestone. There may be a lineament on the site. There are other sinkholes in the area. If a cover subsidence sinkhole develops in an individual retention basin or DRA, stormwater, if any, will seep or percolate through the several feet of soil prior to reaching an aquifer. Most of the pollutants in the retention basin will meet groundwater quality standards prior to percolation and further treatment in the soil. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Special conditions Nos. 13, 14, and 15 on the permit will require Celebrity to inspect the system monthly for sinkhole development. If a sinkhole develops, Celebrity must notify the District within 48 hours of its discovery. Celebrity must submit a detailed repair plan within 30 days for written approval by the District. Celebrity proposes to repair any sinkholes that develop by a District- approved method. Celebrity Resorts, Inc., is a legally established corporation registered in Delaware and owns the subject property. Celebrity does not intend to subdivide the property but to sell memberships to use the property on a time-share basis. Celebrity will administratively operate the site by employing a park manager who will remain on the property 24 hours a day. If any problems occur with the basins, either he or his designee will be on site to respond quickly to the situation. The park manager will have a full-time maintenance staff which will operate the park. Celebrity will financially operate and maintain the proposed system using funds currently raised and in the future by membership fees. Celebrity is a publicly held corporation. Funds raised from the sale of stock, approximately $3,500,000, have paid for legal and administrative fees as well as the land purchase. Approximately $400,000 has been reserved to operate the facility. It will cost approximately $15,000 per month to run the park. Memberships will be sold for $300 per year. Part of the membership fees will go toward the general maintenance of the site. Maintenance of the proposed system will include regular mowing and monthly inspection for sinkholes and repair if necessary. WETLANDS IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT The property contains waters of the state wetlands and isolated wetlands. The waters of the state wetlands are those along the shore of Orange Lake. One isolated wetland exists on site in the sinkhole which is closest to the lake. The sinkhole has standing water in which lemna, or duckweed, is growing. Duckweed is a listed plant species in Section 16.1.1(2) of the Handbook. No construction is proposed in either the waters of the state wetlands or the isolated wetland. The District criteria require the review of impacts to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species relative to the functions currently provided by the wetlands to these types of fish and wildlife. Since there will be no construction in the wetlands, there will be no impacts to the habitat, abundance and diversity, or food sources of off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species from this proposed project. No threatened or endangered aquatic and wetland dependent species were observed on site. The proposed permit application will not adversely affect natural resources, fish, or wildlife in a manner which is inconsistent with the District criteria. The proposed permit application will not adversely affect hydrologically-related environmental functions in a manner which is inconsistent with the District criteria.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition filed by Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Area be dismissed for lack of standing and that Celebrity Resorts, Inc., be issued a MSSW permit for its system as designed and proposed. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Area 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-6 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Celebrity Resorts, Inc. 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-38 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1&2(1); 3-7(4-7); 8-20(8- 20); 21(2); 22-31(21-30); 32(16); and 33-107(31-105). COPIES FURNISHED: Crawford Solomon Qualified Representative Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Post Office Box 481 Citra, FL 32681 William L. Townsend, Jr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 250 Palatka, FL 32178-0250 Nancy B. Barnard Attorney at Law St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted No Notice General Environmental Resource Permits for Lots 61, 245, and 247 within Unit of Development 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, pursuant to permitting criteria of Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, Chapters 40E-40 and 40E-400, Florida Administrative Code, and the South Florida Water Management District's "Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District--November 1996."
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Royal Palm Beach Colony (Royal Palm), is a limited partnership registered and authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), is a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. Intervenor, 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., is a not- for-profit, tax exempt membership corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Intervenor, Indian Trail Improvement District (ITID), is a special district of the State of Florida established by special act of the Legislature, Chapter 57-646, Laws of Florida, and operating pursuant to applicable provisions of Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, as well as special acts of the Legislature. Royal Palm owns approximately 171 lots within Unit of Development 11 of ITID (Unit 11) in Palm Beach County, Florida. Each lot is approximately 1.25 acres. Not all of the lots owned by Royal Palm in Unit 11 are contiguous. Unit 11 is a rural subdivision within ITID, in which there are numerous private property owners. The property of Royal Palm that is the subject of dispute is comprised of three lots, Lots 61, 245, and 247. Unit 11 is within the C-18 Basin. Prior to the construction of the C-18 Canal, the area was typically drained by sheet flow to the north. Because of the flat topography, the drainage in the C-18 Basin is poor; therefore, following periods of heavy rainfall much of the land is inundated. Unit 11 contains an extensive amount of wetlands. There are currently no habitable structures within Unit 11. It consists of vacant lots with an interconnected network of roads, canals, and roadside swales. On August 15, 1975, SFWMD's predecessor, The Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, issued ITID a surface water management permit, Permit No. 50-00136-S (the 1975 permit) for construction and operation of a surface water management system serving Unit 11. The permit authorizes discharge from Unit 11 to the west leg of the C-18 canal via three culverts. In 1988, SFWMD undertook a comprehensive examination of the C-18 Basin, which resulted in a publication entitled "Technical Publication 88-11, Flood Management Study of the C- 18 Basin, August, 1988." The study documented that the western leg of the C-18 canal lacked capacity to accept the permitted discharge from Unit 11. SFWMD determined that the development of Unit 11's flood control and water quantity management system according to Permit No. 50-00136-S would be inconsistent with the overall objectives of SFWMD, harmful to the water resources and the public's health, safety, and welfare, and to the policies and purposes of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and not in the best interest of future residents of Unit 11. SFWMD and ITID entered into a consent agreement concerning Unit 11 on July 7, 1989 (the Consent Agreement). SFWMD and ITID agreed that ITID would apply for, process, and obtain a modification of Permit No. 50-00136-S to address and resolve SFWMD's flooding and water quality concerns. In addition, ITID was to construct the surface water management system authorized in the permit modification in accordance with the terms of the permit. ITID received a permit from SFWMD in 1990 authorizing modifications to the surface water management system in order to address the issues identified in the Consent Agreement, namely potential flooding of homes constructed for future residents of Unit 11. The improvements approved in the 1990 permit were never implemented, and the permit expired. In 1992, ITID proposed a different modification to the surface water management system that proposed an impoundment for retention of stormwater. The permit application was recommended for denial by SFWMD staff, but has never been presented to the SFWMD Governing Board for final agency action. The problems regarding the water quality and flooding problems set forth in the Consent Agreement have not been remedied. On December 4, 1997, Royal Palm obtained variances from the Palm Beach County Health Department (the Health Department), granting Royal Palm the right under certain specified conditions to construct on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTD Systems) on Lots 61, 245, and 247. Originally, the Health Department had denied Royal Palm's request for permission to construct the OSTD Systems on lots 61, 245, and 247 on the grounds that the lots were located in an area subject to frequent flooding and the drainage in the subdivision had not been constructed in accordance with SFWMD's requirements. Subsequent to the granting of the variance, Royal Palm revised its site plans for the three lots, and those revised plans have not been reviewed by the Health Department for compliance with applicable rules. On March 19, 1998, Royal Palm notified SFWMD that Royal Palm was entitled to a No Notice General Permit (NNGP) for Lots 61, 245, and 247 for activities in uplands pursuant to Rule 40E-400.315, Florida Administrative Code. On April 9, 1998, SFWMD issued its agency action by letter that informed Royal Palm that SFWMD staff had determined that the three lots did not qualify for a NNGP. The letter stated the reasons for denial as follows: Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that the proposed system or project is not part of a larger common plan of development. See Rule 40E- 400.315(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code. Royal Palm Colony is the owner of approximately 170 lots within Unit 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, and the three proposed lots appear to be merely part of this large common plan of development. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system with use of septic systems and the associated lack of water quality treatment will not cause pollution in violation of water quality standards. See Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e), and 40E-400.215(11), Fla. Admin. Code. There is not a viable or functioning stormwater management system in place or proposed to provide reasonable assurance that the septic systems would properly function. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, including, but not limited to, significant interference with the construction and operation of a regional stormwater system needed for adequate flood protection and stormwater treatment in the Unit 11 area. See Rule 40E-400.301(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause water quality impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. See Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(a), Fla. Admin. Code. The proposed project adds impervious area and eliminates water storage. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse flooding to on-site and or/or (sic) off-site properties. See Rule 40E- 4.301(10)(b), Fla. Admin. Code. The proposed project adds impervious area and eliminates water storage. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. See Rule 40E-4.301(10)(c), Fla. Admin. Code. The proposed project adds impervious area and eliminates water storage. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species and other surface waters. See Rule 40-4.301(1)(d), Fla. Admin. Code. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that the proposed system or project is capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed. See Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(i), Fla. Admin. Code. On April 23, 1998, Royal Palm filed its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the clerk of SFWMD, initiating this proceeding. Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, is intended to authorize only very minor activities that have no potential to cause harm to water resources. Because the NNGP is issued by rule, SFWMD does not typically review projects that are conducted pursuant to a NNGP. A NNGP does not authorize projects that are part of a common plan of development or sale. In determining whether an activity is within a larger common plan of development, SFWMD staff look to see whether the project has shared infrastructure that facilitates development, such as canals, swales, and roads. A surface water management is in place in Unit 11. It consists of roads, swales, and drainage canals. The system drains to the C-18 canal via three culverts. The system was put into place as a result of the issuance of the 1975 permit, but there have been no modifications to the system as required by the Consent Agreement. During the last ten years ITID has done minimal maintenance to the system. A common road network within Unit 11 provides access to each of the three lots. The lots will depend on the swales and drainage canals as part of overall stormwater management system that serves Unit 11. Unit 11 is a common plan of development. Accordingly, the activities proposed by Royal Palm, filling in order to construct three single family houses with driveways, mounded septic tank systems, and wells within Unit 11 are not authorized pursuant to a NNGP. Royal Palm's predecessor company originally owned all the lots in Unit 11. Royal Palm is presently liquidating its assets. Royal Palm selected the three lots at issue in this case for permitting for individual homes because the lots represented a good overview of the different types of Royal Palm's holdings in the area. If Royal Palm is able to build homes on the three lots and depending on the market conditions and other outside factors, Royal Palm will make a decision on how to liquidate the other 168 lots in Unit 11. It is anticipated that the construction of the homes on the lots at issue will involve placement of fill. Land development, including the placement of fill, displaces stormwater that would, on a property in its natural condition, pond on the surface or soak into the ground. In order to determine whether a project complies with the flood protection criteria, SFWMD staff must consider the effect the proposed land development has off-site, and the effects surrounding lands may have on the lot to be developed. The flood routing calculations provided by Royal Palm in its application did not provide any analysis of how discharges from surrounding properties would affect the performance of the surface water management systems constructed on the lots at issue. Nor did Royal Palm address the potential for flooding of off-site properties by stormwater displaced by fill and impervious areas that are contemplated on Lots 61, 245, and 247. The three lots are not hydrologically separate from the remainder of Unit 11. Royal Palm's failure to include a detailed analysis of the surrounding area also precluded SFWMD from making a determination as to the impacts of the proposed activities upon existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. The proposed projects are single family houses. It is reasonable to expect that some discharge of untreated stormwater runoff from the system directly into wetlands and other surface water will occur. For Lots 245, 247, and 61, the proposed stormwater management system includes a dry detention area. Considering the topographic information for this site, part of the runoff from the fill area will not flow into the dry detention area but will flow untreated directly into wetlands and other surface waters. The runoff could reasonably be expected to include oils, grease, and petroleum from the driveway area and herbicide and pesticides from the yard area. The untreated runoff could pose an adverse impact. Development adjacent to wetlands has the potential to disrupt the usage of those wetlands by wildlife. Section 4.2.7 of the Basis of Review provides that secondary impacts to the habitat functions of wetlands associated with adjacent upland activities are not considered adverse if buffers with a minimum width of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet are provided abutting those wetlands. In certain circumstances, additional measures are necessary. The Basis of Review provides that buffers must be in undisturbed condition, except that drainage features can be located in the buffer if their construction and operation will not negatively impact the wetlands. The design drawings for Lots 245 and 247 demonstrate that the buffers are not undisturbed because fill will be placed in the buffer areas. There is no treatment system in place for the roads in Unit 11; thus, there is a potential for untreated runoff from the roads, which could contain oils, grease, and petroleum constituents, to reach wetlands or surface waters. The roads in Unit 11 are sometimes under water and will require increased maintenance to correct erosion from increased vehicular traffic. Road maintenance and grading present the potential to discharge sediment laden water into adjacent wetlands. This threat is particularly great in Unit 11 because many of the roads go directly through wetlands. The engineering calculations submitted by Royal Palm anticipate that the elevation of the roads will be raised. Raising the elevations will require additional fill, and because several roads in Unit 11 go through wetlands, additional filling of wetlands can be anticipated. Section 6.9(a) of the Basis of Review, requires that residential projects must have the calculated ability to discharge a sufficient volume of stormwater such that the system can return to the control elevation within 12 days of a design storm event. Royal Palm failed to provide information demonstrating that the storage volume provided by the systems proposed for the three lots can be recovered and therefore available for subsequent storm events. Without an adequate understanding of the functioning of the overall surface stormwater management system in Unit 11, it is impossible to determine the amount of time necessary for the systems on the three lots to bleed down to control elevation. In order to allow access to the three lots from the roads, fill must be placed in the roadside swales. Because the elevation of the roadside swales is below the seasonal high water table, they are defined as other surface waters. The swales are depressional areas that support an abundance of obligate wetland vegetation; thus, they are encompassed within the definition of jurisdictional wetlands. Thus, the project will involve direct impacts to wetlands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Royal Palm Beach Colony, L.P.'s application for No Notice General Permits for Lots 61, 245, and 237. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel H. Poole, III, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Teresa J. Moore, Esquire Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive Suite 300 East West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 1000 Friends of Florida Post Office Box 5948 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles F. Schoesch, Esquire Caldwell & Pacetti 234 Royal Palm Way, Suite 300 Palm Beach, Florida 33480
