Findings Of Fact On June 15, 1977, Respondent Department of Transportation (DOT) filed application with Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a permit to relocate 5,188 linear feet of an existing canal commonly referred to as Cypress Strand Canal in Manatee County, Florida. The application and accompanying drawings show that the scope of the project is not merely limited to relocation of the canal, but other dredge and fill activities in the surrounding area incident to the construction of a highway interchange over State Road 64 approximately four and one-half miles east of Bradenton, Florida. On March 15, 1978, DER issued a Notice of Intent to issue a permit for the application pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Public Law 92-500. In its notice, the extent of the project was described as follows: PROJECT: To construct an interchange where I-75 will intersect SR-64 by: filling 5,188 linear feet of a channelized cypress stand by placing 27,100 cubic yards of fill in the existing ditch; excavation of 38,250 cubic yards of material to create a new ditch 4,455 feet long; placement of 195,176 cubic yards of fill in an existing borrow pit to construct a road causeway with 241 linear feet of 72 inch RCP and 288 linear feet of 54 inch RCP placed under the causeway to provide water exchange; placement of 161 linear feet of double 8 ft. by 7 ft. box culvert in the new ditch for the crossing of SR-64; placement of 292 linear feet of 8 ft. by 7 ft. box culvert in the new ditch for the crossing of I-75; placement of two 24 inch and one 42 inch pipe to drain runoff from the interchange into the new ditch. The notice also stated that the proposed permit would be subject to certain conditions, including the placement of silt screens downstream from any construction, completion of ditch (canal) relocation and box culvert construction prior to placing fill in the existing canal, sodding of side slopes of causeway fill, and submission of weekly monitoring reports of turbidity before and during construction at certain locations. The letter provided that if monitoring revealed apparent violations of state water quality standards for turbidity, construction activities must cease immediately and not resume until corrective measures have been taken and turbidity has returned to acceptable levels. The letter also required that state water quality standards prescribed in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, must be met by the DOT. (Exhibits 21 -22) The general area surrounding the project site consists of partially wooded pasture land and some residential development in the southwest portion. A cypress "head" consisting of almost eight acres lies east of the existing Cypress Strand Canal on the south side of SR-64 in the area where the relocated canal is proposed. The proposed roadway also will go through part of this cypress area. The bald cypress trees there are quite old and most reach a diameter of eight to ten feet. It is considered to be one of the few cypress stands to be found in Manatee County. In order to avoid the construction of bridges for the proposed highway in this area, DOT plans to fill approximately five and one-half acres with consequent removal of most of the existing trees in the filled area. Although there is standing water in the cypress hammock area, only an insignificant amount of surface water flows from there to the canal due to the higher elevation of the canal. It was for this reason that the DER supervisor of the dredge and fill section determined that the cypress head was not contiguous to waters regulated by the department. This decision, which was adopted by the Director of the DER Division of Environmental Permitting, in effect, overruled a recommendation by a DER field representative who had conducted an appraisal of the application and determined that the cypress head acts as a preliminary filtering are before the waters empty into the cypress creek salt marsh which then flows into the Manatee River. Expert testimony establishes that the DER position is correct in this respect and that only an insignificant amount of water leaves the cypress pond area into the canal. (Testimony of Allen, McWilliams, Wanielista, Exhibits 6-13, 17, 18, supplemented by Exhibits 15-16, 20.) On the north side of SR 64, the proposed relocated canal and roadway would be constructed through a "borrow pit" which covers approximately 39 acres. It is proposed to fill approximately 12 acres of this area. The remainder will contain water which acts as a "kidney" to filtrate water flowing from the canal and this area will be more than sufficient to adequately perform such a function. (Testimony of Allen, Wanielista, Exhibits 17-18.) The proposed roadway and ramps at the interchange over SR 64 are designated to retard or slow down the surface water movement to minimize degradation of water quality. To this end, the amount of exposed earth fill will be limited to the extent possible, and after the fill is placed in position, various types of erosion control will be accomplished, such as sodding slopes and building earth berms along the top of the roadway. Hay bales will be placed at the "toe" of the slopes during construction to further retard water movement and the introduction of sediment into waterways. Silt barriers termed "Florida diapers" which consist of a floating barrier of vinyl material will be placed strategically to prevent movement of silt past the barrier. This type of screening has proved to be effective in the past in situations involving relatively still water. Although various nutrients, metals, and chemicals will accumulate on the roadway and slopes during operations, the foregoing methods of retarding flow will serve as filters to reduce degradation of water quality. Additionally, depressions will be made in median areas to permit percolation into the roadway fill material. The "infield" or areas inside the circular ramps, consisting of approximately 20 acres, will be vegetated by the planting of some 150 cypress trees. The 80-foot-wide median area will also be vegetated. The concrete box culverts for the crossing of the proposed roadway will replace some 550 feet of the existing canal and will cause a somewhat accelerated flow of water. Overall, however, in the opinion of Respondents' expert witness, runoff from the interchange area will not measurably increase pollution in the Cypress Strand Canal or the Manatee River. It is his view that much of the water will percolate into the interchange ground area and that any remaining flow will result in 90 percent removal of pollutants by the various proposed methods of erosion control. In fact, the expert is of the view that the project is "overdesigned" at the present time and that the interchange infield design plus the filtering action that will take place in the borrow pit is more than sufficient to insure minimum degradation of water quality. (Testimony of Allen, Wanielista, Exhibit 13, 23.) All contracts for DOT roadway construction involve a special clause termed "Erosion Control and Pollution Abatement" that requires the building contractor to perform the various erosion control measures connected with the project. At a preconstruction conference, the contractor is required to tell DOT the specific manner in which such measures will be accomplished. During the construction phase, representatives of DER monitor the progress and recommend any necessary changes to meet State water quality requirements. Similar monitoring is required after construction and during operation of the roadway for the life of the permit. Although no precise data on the extent of any water degradation can be obtained until after construction commences, past experiences of the DER with the standard DOT construction contracts have proved the measures taken thereunder effectively maintain water quality standards. On this basis, the DER determined that DOT had provided reasonable assurances that construction of the interchange would not result in exceeding State water quality standards. (Testimony of Allen, McWilliams.) Various objections against granting the requested permit have been expressed by members of the public and environmental groups. Although most of these witnesses acknowledge the need for the I-75 extension, they were of the opinion that the roadway should be relocated to the east away from the cypress wetlands area. Additionally, written communications received in evidence from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Florida Division of Forestry, Manatee Health Department, and the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife Service raised objections to the proposed project based upon the elimination of the Cypress Stand area and recommended either relocation of the interchange or preservation of the existing wetlands. (Testimony of Duisburg, Belmont, Miller, Flisik, Matey, Quy, Exhibits 4, 14-16, 19.) Other public witnesses representing the City Council of Palmetto, Florida, the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County, Florida, Manatee County Chamber of Commerce, City Commission of Bradenton, Florida, and private interests recommended approval of the application. The testimony of these witnesses and various resolutions from governmental bodies primarily focused on the urgent need for construction of the I-75 interchange to promote the economic and general welfare of the area residents and promote safety on the highways. (Testimony of Gallon, Holland, Prather, Neal, Price, Reasoner, Coates, Wiseman, T. Harllee, Jr., T. Harllee, Pinardi, Harden, Exhibits 1-3, 5, 24.)
Recommendation That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue the requested permit to the Department of Transportation. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jay Landers, Jr. Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James W. Anderson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Judith Smith Kavanaugh, Esquire 543 Tenth Street, West Bradenton, Florida 33505
The Issue The issue is whether an Environmental Resource Permit should be issued to KGB Lake Howell, LLC, authorizing the construction of a surface water management system to serve an apartment complex known as the Estates at Lake Howell in the City of Casselberry, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this proceeding, Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), proposes to issue an Environmental Resource Permit to Respondent, KGB Lake Howell, LLC (Applicant), authorizing the construction of a stormwater management system to serve a 240-unit apartment complex known as the Estates of Lake Howell. The project will be located on an undeveloped tract of land in the City of Casselberry (City), Seminole County, Florida, just north of the Orange County line. It will include ten three-story buildings, parking, clubhouse/ administration building, amenity complex, and wet detention pond. The project also incorporates a 3.62-acre stormwater pond, now owned and used by Seminole County (County), lying east of Lake Ann Lane across from the project site, which was included in the overall acreage calculations for the purpose of increasing apartment density on the site. The Applicant has authorization from the County to apply for the permit incorporating that tract of land. The pond will continue to function as a stormwater facility for the County and will not accommodate stormwater from the project site. The project site consists of 38.9 acres located on the north side of Howell Branch Road, east of State Road 436 (also known as Semoran Boulevard), and west of Lake Ann Lane in the City. The site is currently undeveloped and includes an abandoned orange grove and upland pine flatwoods community, which make up approximately 14.6 acres, while the remaining 24.3 acres is a mixed forested wetland system. The property is now owned by the Harold Kasik Living Trust (Kasik property), which has a contract for purchase with the Applicant. The Kasik property is in the shape of a rectangle, 648 feet by 2,530 feet, with its long sides running north- south. It is bordered on the north and east by single-family residential and vacant land, to the south by commercial development, and to the west by high-density residential and commercial development. The property has a high elevation of approximately 83 feet on its southeastern corner and falls to the north/northeast, where the edge of the wetland system is at an elevation of 63 or 64 feet. The major development constraint on the site is the large wetland tract on the northern portion of the property. In order to minimize proposed impacts to the wetlands, the Applicant proposed the transfer of the development entitlements from the County land to benefit the Applicant's property. More specifically, the Applicant will acquire the County property, the Applicant will simultaneously grant a perpetual drainage easement over the property to the County, the Applicant will maintain the landscaping of the property in perpetuity, the Applicant will convey around five acres of wetlands on the northern end of the Kasik property to the County in fee simple, and the City will allow the transfer of development rights from the property. The project will adversely impact 0.99 acres of low- quality wetlands, of which 0.72 acres are to be dredged and 0.27 acres are to be filled to provide the fencing around the wet detention facility. To offset this impact, the Applicant proposes to preserve 17.8 acres of forested wetlands, plus 1.2 acres of forested uplands, or a mitigation ratio of 18:1. The District's guidelines for preservation mitigation applicable to this project are 10:1 to 60:1 for wetland impacts and 3:1 to 20:1 for upland impacts; thus, the mitigation plan falls within these guidelines. Under current conditions, stormwater runoff from the project site sheet flows into the on-site wetland and ultimately Lake Howell (the Lake), a Class III water body which meets all applicable water quality standards and is not an Outstanding Florida Water. After development occurs, stormwater from the developed portions of the property will be conveyed to a wet detention pond for required water quality treatment and peak discharge rate attenuation. After treatment in the detention pond, the water will discharge to the on-site wetland, as it does now, and eventually will be conveyed into the Lake. Off-site flows will continue to be conveyed into the on-site wetland. The wet detention pond, which has a minimum depth of twelve feet and a permanent pool of water with a mean depth of two to eight feet, has been designed to accommodate a 25-year, 24-hour storm. Post-development discharge will be less than pre-development, and the outfall structure has been designed to avoid channelization in the wetlands after the point of discharge. Since at least the late 1940's, Petitioner, Shirley Haynes, or her relatives, have owned, or resided on, a multi-acre tract of land just north of the project site at 2764 Lake Howell Lane. She has substantial frontage on the south side of the Lake. The southern portion of her property, which are wetlands, adjoins the northern boundary of the project site. For the past three years, Petitioner, Egerton van den Berg, has resided on a ten-acre tract of land at 1245 Howell Point, which is northeast of the project site. He has approximately 235 feet of frontage on the south side of the Lake. As argued in their Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioners generally contend that the application is "materially deficient" in several respects in violation of Rule 40C-4.101; that the Applicant has failed to satisfy Rule 40C-4.301(1)(c) and (d), which in turn constitutes a failure to meet the requirements of Rule 40C-4.302(1)(a)-(c); that the Applicant failed to satisfy the criteria in Sections 12.2.3(a)-(f), 12.2.1, 12.2.1.1, 12.2.1.3, 12.2.2.3(a)-(e), 12.2.2.4(a) and (b), 12.3.2.2(c), and 12.3.8(a) of the Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (Applicant's Handbook); that the District did not adequately consider the cumulative impacts of the project as required by Section 373.414(8)(a), Florida Statutes; that a low flow analysis of the Lake was not performed, as required by Rule 40C-8.011(5); that the Applicant did not submit detailed mitigation plans as required by Section 12.3.3.2 of the Applicant's Handbook; that the 18:1 ratio for mitigation proposed by the Applicant is inappropriate; and that the District should not approve the density of the apartments established by the City. These concerns, to the extent they have been identified as issues in the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, are addressed in the findings below. Where contentions have been raised by Petitioners, such as the placement of the detention pond over a depressional area, and they have not been argued in the Proposed Recommended Order, they have been deemed to be abandoned. Conditions for issuance of permits Rule 40C-4.301(1)(a)-(k), Florida Administrative Code, specifies eleven substantive requirements for which reasonable assurance must be given in order for a standard permit to be issued. Subsection (3) of the same Rule provides that the standards and criteria contained in the Applicant's Handbook shall determine whether the foregoing reasonable assurances have been given. Additional conditions for the issuance of a permit are found in Rule 40C-4.302(1) when the project, or any part of it, is located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters. Therefore, because a part of the Applicant's system will be located in wetlands, the Applicant must also give reasonable assurance that the project will not be contrary to the public interest, and that it will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon the wetlands or surface waters. a. Rule 40C-4.301 Paragraphs (a)-(c) of the Rule require that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, or adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. If a system meets the requirements of Section 10.2.1(a) through (d) of the Applicant's Handbook, there is a presumption that the system complies with the requirements of Paragraphs (a) through (c). This presumption has been met since the evidence supports a finding that the post- development peak rate of discharge will be lower than the pre- development peak rate of discharge for a 24-hour, 25-year storm event. Therefore, the Applicant's system meets the requirements of these Paragraphs. Paragraph (d) of the Rule requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the project "will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters." To satisfy this requirement, an applicant must also demonstrate compliance with the two-prong test in Sections 12.2.2 and 12.2.2.4 of the Applicant's Handbook. Section 12.2.2 requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not impact the values of wetlands and other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to the abundance, diversity, and habitat of fish, wildlife, and listed species. In its proposal, the Applicant proposes to fill a total of 0.99 acres of wetlands. Since these impacts will eliminate the ability of the filled part of the on-site wetland to provide functions to fish and wildlife, the filling will cause adverse impacts. Under these circumstances, Section 12.2.1.1 requires that the Applicant either implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate these adverse impacts or meet one of the exceptions under Section 12.2.1.2. Under Section 12.2.1.1, a proposed modification which is not technically capable of being done, is not economically viable, or which adversely affects public safety through the endangerment of lives or property is not considered practicable. The Applicant’s design for the proposed project went through a number of iterations prior to submittal to the District to reduce adverse impacts to the wetlands. During the permitting process, the District requested that the Applicant consider a number of other suggestions to reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts to wetlands such as adding a fourth floor to the apartment buildings to eliminate the need for one apartment building, building a parking garage for the tenants, and eliminating the tennis and volleyball courts. Because the Applicant provided detailed reasons why none of those suggestions were practicable, it was not required to implement any of those design modifications. In addition, the Applicant’s decision not to include a littoral zone around the stormwater pond did not increase the amount of wetland impacts as that engineering decision resulted in a stormwater pond that was simply deeper and not wider. Therefore, the Applicant has met the requirement to reduce or eliminate adverse wetland impacts. Section 12.2.1.1 only requires an elimination and reduction analysis when: (1) a proposed system will result in adverse impacts to wetland functions and other surface water functions so that it does not meet the requirements of Sections 12.2.2 through 12.2.3.7, or (2) neither one of the two exceptions within Section 12.2.1.2 applies. In determining whether one of the two exceptions in Section 12.2.1.2 applies, the District must evaluate the long- term ecological value of the mitigation proposed by the Applicant. If the mitigation is not adequate to offset the adverse impacts of the proposed system, then it is unlikely either exception in Section 12.2.1.2 will apply. As noted above, the Applicant’s proposed dredging and filling of the southern edge of the wetlands on the project site will eliminate the ability of that wetland area to provide functions to fish and wildlife. However, the Applicant’s mitigation plan of placing 17.8 acres of wetlands and 1.2 acres of uplands under a conservation easement to preserve that property in its natural state in perpetuity will fully replace the types of functions that the part of the wetlands proposed to be impacted provides to fish and wildlife. The mitigation plan will also offset the adverse impacts that this project will have on the value and functions provided to fish and wildlife by the impacted part of the wetlands. In this case, the first exception under Section 12.2.1.2(a) applies as it meets that Section's two requirements: the ecological value of the functions provided by the area of wetland to be adversely affected is low, and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long-term ecological value than the area or wetland to be adversely affected. Also, the quality of the wetland to be impacted is low. All of the proposed impacts will occur in the area of the wetland that was historically disturbed and in which nuisance and exotic species are prevalent. Due to nuisance and exotic vegetation, the ecological value provided by that area to wildlife is low. The mitigation for the proposed project will provide greater long-term ecological value to fish and wildlife than the part of the wetland proposed to be impacted because the proposed mitigation will preserve eighteen times more wetlands that are of higher quality and provide greater value than the wetland area to be impacted. The type of wetland to be preserved, a mixed forested wetland containing hardwoods, is rare for the area. Although the mitigation plan will provide greater long-term ecological value to fish and wildlife than the part of the wetland proposed to be impacted, the Applicant did not meet the second exception in the elimination and reduction rule under Section 12.2.1.2(b) because the wetlands to be preserved are not regionally significant. In addition to meeting the elimination and reduction rule through implementation of practicable design modifications, the Applicant also satisfied the same rule by meeting the first exception found in Section 12.2.1.2(a). Thus, the Applicant has satisfied Section 12.2.2, which is the first prong of the test to determine compliance with Paragraph (d). The second prong of the test to determine whether Paragraph (d) of the Rule has been satisfied is found in Section 12.2.2.4. That Section requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the activity will not change the hydroperiod of a wetland so as to affect wetland functions. For the following reasons, that prong of the test has been satisfied. Since the wetlands are primarily groundwater-influenced, the construction of the stormwater pond between the project and the wetlands will not adversely affect the wetlands. As the soils surrounding the pond are very porous with a high infiltration and percolation rate, water from the stormwater pond will still reach the wetlands through lateral seepage. Further, the Applicant will install an energy dissipating device on the outfall spout at the point of discharge so that water will be spread out from the stormwater pond as it discharges into the receiving wetlands. As noted earlier, this will prevent an adverse channelization effect. Finally, stormwater runoff from the surrounding basins that currently discharge into the wetlands will not be affected by the construction of the stormwater system. That runoff will continue to flow into the wetlands on the project site. Because the Applicant has satisfied Sections 12.2.2 and 12.2.2.4, Paragraph (d) of the Rule has been met. Paragraph (e) of the Rule generally requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that a project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. Here, the Applicant has provided such assurance. This is because the system has been designed in accordance with all relevant District criteria. Also, the Applicant has proposed to revise Permit Condition 26 as follows: Condition 26. This permit authorizes construction and operation of a surface water management system as shown on the plans received by the District on June 14, 2001, and as amended by plan sheet C4 (Sheet 07 of 207) received by the District on January 23, 2002. In view of this revision, the Applicant's wet detention system complies with all of the design criteria contained in Rule 40C-42.026(4). Under Rule 40C-42.023(2)(a), compliance with the design criteria contained in Rule 40C-42.026 creates a presumption that state water quality standards, including those for Outstanding Florida Waters, will be met. This presumption has not been rebutted; therefore, the requirements of Paragraph (e) of the Rule have been satisfied. Further, Sections 12.2.4.1 and 12.2.4.2 state, in part, that reasonable assurance regarding water quality must be provided both for the short term and the long term, addressing the proposed construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, and abandonment of the system. The Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that this requirement is met through the design of its surface water management system, its long-term maintenance plan for the system, and the long and short-term erosion and turbidity control measures it proposes. If issued, the permit will require that the surface water management system be constructed and operated in accordance with the plans approved by the District. The permit will also require that the proposed erosion and turbidity control measures be implemented. Section 12.2.4.5 does not apply because there are no exceedances of any water quality standards at the proposed receiving water. Also, Sections 12.2.4.3 and 12.2.4.4 do not apply because the Applicant has not proposed any docking facilities or temporary mixing zones. Paragraph (f) of the Rule requires that an applicant not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. Compliance with this requirement is determined by applying the four-part test in Section 12.2.7(a) through (d). As to Section 12.2.7(a), there are no secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of the proposed system that will cause water quality violations or adverse impacts to the wetland functions. The Applicant chose not to provide buffers abutting the wetlands but rather chose measures other than buffers to meet this requirement. The Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that secondary impacts will not occur by placing the stormwater pond between the planned project and the wetlands, so that the pond itself will serve as a buffer by shielding the wetland from the lighting and noise of the project, and by acting as a barrier to keep domestic animals out of the wetlands. In addition, the Applicant increased the amount of property to be preserved as mitigation by adding 2.97 acres of wetlands and 1.2 acres of uplands to the mitigation plan to mitigate for any remaining secondary impacts. Accordingly, the first part of the secondary impacts test in Section 12.2.7(a) is satisfied. As to Section 12.2.7(b), because there is no evidence that any aquatic or wetland-dependent listed animal species use uplands for existing nesting or denning adjacent to the project, the second part of the test has been met. No adverse secondary impacts will occur under the third part of the test in Section 12.2.7(c) because the proposed project will not cause impacts to significant historical or archaeological resources. Finally, adverse secondary impacts as proscribed by Section 12.2.7(d) will not occur because no evidence was presented that there would be additional phases or expansion of the proposed system or that there are any onsite or offsite activities that are closely or causally linked to the proposed system. Therefore, the proposed project satisfies Paragraph (f) of the Rule. Paragraph (g) of the Rule requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that a project will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established in Chapter 40C-8. Minimum (but not maximum) surface water levels have been established for the Lake pursuant to Chapter 40C-8 for the basin in which the project is located. The project will not cause a decrease of water to, or cause a new withdrawal of water from, the Lake. Therefore, the project satisfies this requirement. Finally, Petitioners have acknowledged in their Proposed Recommended Order that the Applicant has given reasonable assurance that the requirements of Paragraphs (h), (i), (j), and (k) have been met. The parties have also stipulated that the receiving water (Lake Howell) meets all Class III water quality standards. Therefore, the project satisfies the requirements of Subsection 40C-4.301(2). Rule 40C-4.302 - Public Interest Test Under Rule 40C-4.302(1)(a)1.-7., an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the parts of its surface water management system located in, on, or over wetlands are not contrary to the public interest. Similar requirements are found in Section 12.2.3. The Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the parts of the project that are located in, on, or over wetlands (mainly the detention pond and fill) are not contrary to the public interest, because the evidence showed that all seven of the public interest factors to be balanced are neutral. Because the proposed permanent mitigation will offset the project’s adverse impacts to wetlands, no adverse effects to the conservation of fish and wildlife due to the project’s permanent nature will occur. The evidence also showed that best management practices and erosion control measures will ensure that the project will not result in harmful erosion or shoaling. Further, it was demonstrated that the project will not adversely affect the flow of water, navigation, significant historical or archaeological resources, recreational or fishing values, marine productivity, or the public health, safety, welfare or property of others. Finally, the evidence showed that the project’s design, including permanent mitigation, will maintain the current condition and relative value of functions performed by parts of the wetland proposed to be impacted. Therefore, the project meets the public interest criteria found in Rule 40C-4.302(1)(a). Rule 40C-4.302(1)(b) - Cumulative Impacts Rule 40C-4.302(1)(b) and Section 12.2.8 require that an applicant demonstrate that its project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin as the regulated activity for which the permit is being sought. Under this requirement, if an applicant proposes to mitigate the adverse impacts to wetlands within the same drainage basin as the impacts, and if the mitigation fully offsets these impacts, the District will consider the regulated activity to have no unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. The Applicant has chosen to mitigate for the impacts to 0.99 acres of wetlands by preserving 17.8 acres of wetlands and 1.2 acres of uplands on-site. Since this mitigation will occur in the same drainage basin as the impacts and the mitigation fully offsets those impacts, the Applicant satisfies the requirements of the Rule. Rule 40C-4.302 - Other Requirements The parties have stipulated that the requirements of Paragraphs (c) and (d) of Rule 40C-4.302(1) do not apply. There is no evidence that the Applicant has violated any District rules or that it has been the subject of prior disciplinary action. Therefore, the requirements of Subsection (2) of the Rule have been met. Miscellaneous Matters County Pond Site The Seminole County pond site located on the east side of Lake Ann Lane and across the street from the project is not a jurisdictional wetland and does not have any wetland indicators. It is classified as an upland cut surface water. The Applicant is not proposing to impact any wetlands at the pond site, and the site is not part of the proposed mitigation plan for the project. The permit in issue here is not dependent on the pond site, and nothing in the application ties the project with that site. Indeed, the transfer of density rights from the County property is not relevant to the District permitting criteria. Review of Application When the decision to issue the permit was made, the District had received all necessary information from the Applicant to make a determination that the project met the District's permitting criteria. While certain information may have been omitted from the original application, these items were either immaterial or were not essential to the permitting decision. The application complies with all District permitting criteria. Contrary to Petitioners' contention, the Applicant does not have to be the contract purchaser for property in order to submit an application for that property. Rather, the District may review a permit application upon receipt of information that the applicant has received authorization from the current owners of the property to apply for a permit. In this case, the Applicant has the permission of the current owners (the Harold Kasik Living Trust).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order granting the requested permit as described above. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kirby B. Green, III, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Shirley B. Haynes 2764 Lake Howell Road Winter Park, Florida 32792-5725 Egerton K. van den Berg 1245 Howell Point Winter Park, Florida 32792-5706 Charles A. Lobdell, III, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Meredith A. Harper, Esquire Shutts & Bowen Post Office Box 4956 Orlando, Florida 32802-4956
The Issue The issues for disposition are whether BJM Associates, Inc. is required to apply for and obtain a drainage connection permit pursuant to rule 14-86, Florida Administrative Code, and if so, whether BJM Associates, Inc., has failed to obtain that permit.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, BJM Associates, Inc. (BJM) is the owner and developer of Rosetta Villas Subdivision, located in Orange County, Florida, (Respondent’s prehearing Statement) Petitioner, Department of Transportation (D0T) purchased an adjacent parcel, including a retention pond, “Pond A”, in 1991, in anticipation of a road-improvement or extension project for Maitland Boulevard. The pond was purchased from Rose Industrial Park, a permitted development also adjacent to the pond. Rosetta Villas Subdivision received Orange County subdivision approval in 1986 and 1988, and a St. John’s River Water Management District permit for stormwater facilities in 1991. Lots have been platted, streets have been constructed and homes have been sold. Rosetta Villas Subdivision includes a water retention pond on-site, built in 1995. There is a pipe from that pond which discharges water into a ditch that is partially within the DOT right of way. The ditch has a 30-inch concrete pipe which discharges into DOT’s Pond A. There is some indication in the record that a diversion ditch was part of an over-all permit for the Rose Industrial Park development prior to DOT’s purchase of Pond A. The diversion ditch was intended to convey stormwater around, and not into Pond A. The diversion ditch south of Rosetta Villas and north of Pond A does not convey Rosetta Villas’ run off around Pond A. Instead the 30-inch concrete pipe conveys Rosetta Villas’ overflow water into Pond A. The 30-inch concrete pipe was constructed by BJM in 1995 after an existing, much smaller, pipe became clogged. BJM contends that the pipe was replaced at the direction of someone from DOT. While that contention is not disputed, nothing in this record supports any suggestion that DOT is now estopped from requiring a drainage connection permit. At hearing BJM’s own expert witness opined that the 30-inch pipe which now discharges into Pond A requires a connection permit. (Transcript, p. 130) BJM does not have that permit and, after meetings and extensive discussion with DOT staff, has not applied for the permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the Department of Transportation issue its Final Order requiring BJM to apply for a drainage connection permit pursuant to chapter 14-86, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of February 1997 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February 1997. ENDDNOTE 1/ BJM presented extensive evidence regarding the diversion ditch or swale and its intended purpose. It may be possible for BJM to redirect its out-flow however, the current status of the drainage system. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Transportation Burns Building, Mail Station 58 608 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Bernard J. Martin, Esquire 506 Wymore Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn.: Diedre Grubbs Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issue is whether an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and a Letter of Consent to Use Sovereignty Submerged Lands (Letter of Consent) should be issued to Respondent, Palm Beach County (County), authorizing it to fill 7.97 acres of submerged lands for a restoration project in Lake Worth Lagoon.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings are determined: The Parties Trump is the owner association for a two-towered residential and commercial condominium building located at 525 South Flagler Drive in downtown West Palm Beach, upland and west of the project site in the Lagoon. Each tower rises thirty floors and together they have of two hundred twenty units. The first five floors are common areas including a lobby on the first floor, while a pool and patio are located on the fifth floor of the north tower. The property is separated from the Lagoon by Flagler Drive, a four-lane divided road with landscaping and sidewalks which runs adjacent to, and on the western side of, the Lagoon. There is no dispute that Trump has standing to initiate this action. Flagler owns, manages, and leases two multi-story office buildings located at 501 Flagler Drive on the upland real property directly west of the project location. Like the Trump property, the Flagler property is separated from the Lagoon by Flagler Drive. There is no dispute that Flagler has standing to participate in this matter. The County is a political subdivision of the State and is the applicant in this proceeding. The Department is the state agency with the authority under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes,2 to issue to the County an ERP for the project, as well as authority as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees) to authorize activities on sovereign submerged lands pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 18-21. Background On October 29, 2007, the County submitted to the Department its Joint Application for an ERP and Letter of Consent to use sovereignty submerged lands in the Lagoon owned by the Board of Trustees. The application was assigned File No. 50- 0283929-00. After an extensive review process, including three requests for additional information, on August 12, 2008, the Department issued its Notice of Intent authorizing the County to fill 7.97 acres of submerged lands in the Lagoon with approximately 172,931 cubic yards of sand and rock material to create the following: (a) approximately 1.75 acres of red mangrove habitat including 1.52 acres of mangrove islands and 0.23 acres of red mangrove planters; (b) approximately 0.22 acres of cordgrass habitat; (c) approximately 0.90 acres of oyster habitat; (d) approximately 3.44 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation habitat; and (e) a 10-foot by 556-foot (5,560 square feet) public boardwalk with two 3-foot by 16-foot (48 square feet) educational kiosk areas and a 16-foot by 16-foot (256 square feet) observation deck for a total square footage of approximately 5,912 square feet. The Notice of Intent also included a number of general and specific conditions particular to this project. Trump (by timely Petition) and Flagler (by intervention) then challenged the Notice of Intent. They contend generally that the project unreasonably infringes upon or restricts their riparian rights and fails to meet the permitting and consent to use criteria set forth in Chapters 18-21 and 40E-4, as well as Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Section 253.141, Florida Statutes. Conflicting evidence on these issues was presented at the hearing. The conflicts have been resolved in favor of the County and the Department, who presented the more persuasive evidence. The Project The project area is a cove in the Lagoon, a Class III water body which extends within the County from North Palm Beach to Manalapan. The western side of the water body in the project area is lined with a vertical concrete seawall approximately 6.64 feet above the mean low water line. The waters immediately adjacent to the Trump and Flagler upland property are generally two to five feet deep along the seawall. To the east lies the island of Palm Beach, to the south is the Royal Park Bridge, which connects West Palm Beach and the Town of Palm Beach, while to the north is the Flagler Memorial drawbridge. The Lagoon is approximately 2,000 feet from shore to shore. The Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) runs roughly through the middle of the Lagoon in a north-south direction. Currently, there is an artificial dredge hole in the project area around four hundred feet from the western seawall. The dredge hole, which descends to approximately twenty feet at its deepest location, is filled with muck, which can be re- suspended by wave energy into the water, blocking the sunlight necessary for the support of biotic life. The muck covers the natural hard bottom, consumes oxygen, and presents an unsuitable environment for benthic organisms. The dredge hole is too deep to support seagrasses. The project calls for filling the dredge hole to intertidal elevations, i.e., between the high and low tide elevations, for mangroves and elevations suitable for seagrass. In all, approximately 173,000 cubic yards of fill will be placed in and around the hole to build up three separate islands within the project footprint, on which the County will plant 10,000 red mangroves, which naturally grow between fifteen and twenty-five feet in height. (The County estimates that eighty to ninety percent of the mangroves will survive and grow to a height of at least fifteen feet.) The top of the islands, not including mangroves, will be just below the mean high water mark. The County also proposes locating planters along the seawall and oyster reefs along the southern end of the project. The planters are designed to extend out approximately twenty feet from the seawall and will be placed on sovereign submerged lands. The last five feet will consist of limestone rock. Mangrove, spartina, and seagrass habitats will provide a biodiverse source of food and habitat for other species, and occurs naturally within the Lagoon but has been lost over time. Oyster habitat is proposed for additional bio-diversity and to provide a natural water filtration function. From the County's perspective, the restoration project would be incomplete without all the habitats proposed. The planters will be at an intertidal elevation, planted with red mangroves and spartina, and faced with rock to reduce wave energy in the area. The oyster reefs are rock structures designed to rise one foot above mean high water line for visibility to boaters. The project also includes a boardwalk and attached educational kiosks on the south side of the project to bring the public in contact with the habitats. The County will maintain the boardwalk, empty the trash daily, and open/close the gates at sunrise/sunset. The County proposes a minimum ten-foot buffer between seagrass beds and the fill area. The project is part of the County's Lagoon Management Plan, which outlines the County's restoration goals within the Lagoon. The County has performed numerous other restoration projects within the Lagoon to re-introduce mangrove and seagrass habitat, such as Snook Island, which consisted of filling a 100- acre dredge hole, installing mangrove islands, seagrass flats, and oyster reefs. The Snook Island project restored mangrove habitat and recruited fish and bird species, including endangered and threatened species. Snook Island has remained stable, with no sediment deposition or erosion. The County intends to fill the dredge hole with native lagoon bottom sediment. A clam-shell machine will deposit the sediment below the water line to reduce turbidity. Sediment will be placed around the edges of the dredge hole, reducing the velocity of the fill as it settles to the bottom and encapsulates the muck, as required by Draft Permit Special Condition No. 19. The County will use turbidity curtains, monitor conditions hourly, and stop work if turbidity levels rise beyond acceptable standards. These precautions are included in Draft Permit Conditions 12, 13, and 14. The County will use construction barges with a four- foot draft to avoid propeller dredge or rutting and will place buoys along the project boundary to guide the construction barges, precautions integrated into the Draft Permit conditions. The County's vendor contracts require maintenance of construction equipment to prevent leakage. A similar condition is found in the Draft Permit. Both the intertidal and seagrass flats elevations at the top of the islands will be built at a 4:1 slope; elevations subject to wind and wave energy will be reinforced with a rock revetment constructed of filter cloth and rock boulders. Seagrass elevations will have no reinforcing rock because they are deep enough to avoid significant currents. Proposed drawings were signed and sealed by a professional engineer. The ERP Criteria To secure regulatory approval for an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions in current Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E- 4.302. The first rule focuses primarily on water quantity, environmental impacts, and water quality. The latter rule requires that a public interest balancing test be made, and that cumulative impacts, if any, be considered. Also, the BOR, which implements the rule criteria, must be taken into account. a. Rule 40E-4.301 21. Paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c), (1)(g), (1)(h), and (1)(k) and subsections (2) and (3) of the rule do not apply. Although Trump and Flagler have focused primarily on paragraphs (1)(d), (f), and (i) in their joint Proposed Recommended Order, all remaining criteria will be addressed. Paragraph (1)(d) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the proposed activity "will not adversely affect the value of the functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters." Based on the project design, the filling of the dredge hole and capping of muck, the restoration of seagrass habitat, and the creation of mangrove habitat, the project will have no adverse impacts but rather will be beneficial to the value of functions for fish and wildlife. Paragraph (1)(e) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The County will be required to manage turbidity that may be generated from the project. In part, the turbidity will be contained by the proposed construction method for filling the dredge hole. As noted earlier, the native sand will be deposited using a clamshell-type arm to dump the sand under the water around the periphery of the edge of the downward slope of the dredge hole. This will continue around the periphery of the hole, building up a lip and letting it slide down towards the bottom of the hole, squeezing the muck into the center of the hole and beginning to encapsulate it. Once there are several feet of native sand over the muck to encapsulate it, the County will resume the filling at the target rate. Subsection 4.2.4.1 of the BOR requires that the County address stabilizing newly created slopes of surfaces. To satisfy this requirement, the County will place the fill at a 4:1 slope. The outer edge of the mangrove islands slope back to a 4:1 slope and use rock rip-rap to stabilize that slope. Also, filter cloth, bedding stones, and boulders will be used. Because water currents slow near the bottom, the 4:1 slope for the seagrass elevations on the bottom will not de-stabilize. There will be turbidity curtains around the project area. Those are floating tops and weighted bottoms that reach to the bottom and are intended to contain any turbidity that may be generated by the project. Specific Conditions 12, 13, and 14 require extensive monitoring of turbidity. The County proposes to use a barge with a draft no greater than four feet. This aspect of the project will require a pre-construction meeting and extensive monitoring throughout the project. As a part of the application review, the County performed a hydrographic analysis which was coordinated with and reviewed by the Department staff. There are no expected debris or siltation concerns as a result of the project. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that over the long term, the project is expected to have a beneficial effect on water quality. By filling the dredge hole and providing habitat for seagrass, mangroves, and oysters, the project will provide net improvement to water quality. The requirements of the rule have been met. Paragraph (1)(f) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the activities will not "cause secondary impacts to the water resources." More detailed criteria for consideration are found in BOR Subsection 4.2.7. The County has provided reasonable assurance that through best management practices, it will control turbidity. Also, Specific Conditions in the proposed permit require that water quality monitoring be conducted throughout the process. There will be no impacts to upland habitat for aquatic or wetland dependent species. This is because a vertical seawall is located upland of the project site, and no surrounding uplands are available for nesting or denning by aquatic or wetland dependent listed species. A secondary impact evaluation also includes an evaluation of any related activities that might impact historical and archaeological resources. There are, however, no historical or archaeological resources in the area. If resources are uncovered during the project, Draft Permit conditions require notification to the Department of State. Finally, there are no anticipated future activities or future phases on the project to be considered. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the project "will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed." Trump and Flagler contend that the project cannot be constructed and successfully operated as proposed. Trump's expert witness, Joseph Pike, testified that there were ambiguities and conflicts within the plan drawings that would require changes upon build-out; either fill will be placed outside of the fill area, or the mangrove islands will be smaller than depicted. Mr. Pike also voiced concerns that a 4:1 slope would not be stable and might cause fill to migrate to existing seagrass beds. He further stated that the Snook Island project included 18:1 slopes, and he thought providing rock revetment only at the intertidal zone was insufficient. Mr. Pike acknowledged that he had used 4:1 slopes in lake projects; however, in a tidal project involving fill placement, he opined that a 4:1 slope was likely to "relax." He did not do calculations about what slope might hold and admitted that prior experience using similar slopes with the same type of fill might change his opinion. Finally, Mr. Pike noted that a portion of the dredge hole would not be filled and concluded that the project would not fully cap the muck. Trump's biologist, James Goldasitch, speculated that the water flow changes would cause sediment deposition on existing seagrass beds, possibly causing the seagrasses to die. He admitted, however, that the County's plans called for the creation of 3.44 acres of seagrass and did not know the amount of habitat created compared to the amount of habitat he anticipated being affected. The Department's engineer, Jack Wu, approved the hydrologic aspects of the County's plan, but Mr. Goldasitch speculated that Mr. Wu was more focused on shoreline stability than on depositional forces. Mr. Goldasitch never actually spoke to Mr. Wu regarding his analysis, and Mr. Wu's memorandum refers not only to engineering and construction aspects of the proposal but also to the criteria in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. Mr. Goldasitch believed the County's boardwalk will impact the seagrass beds by blocking sunlight, but acknowledged that the Draft Permit required the boardwalk to be elevated and portions to be grated. Both the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Department's expert witness concluded that the permit conditions for constructing the boardwalk, which are common, eliminated impacts to seagrass. Mr. Goldasitch further opined that the 4:1 slope might slump, but then deferred to the opinion of a registered engineer on this type of engineering matter. The County presented its professional engineer, Clint Thomas, who worked on the project design. Mr. Thomas explained that permit drawings are not intended to be construction-level in detail, but are merely intended to provide sufficient detail for the regulator to understand the project within the 8 and 1/2 by 11-inch paper format required by the Department. The County will ultimately prepare permit-level, construction-level, and as-built drawings. Permit conditions also require a pre-construction meeting. No fill will be placed outside the area designated for fill, and the 4:1 slope will start at the outer boundary of the designated fill area until it reaches the specified elevation. Mr. Thomas acknowledged that the plan view drawings depict a mangrove island too close to the western project boundary, but stated that the mangrove island would simply be placed farther to the east during the construction-level plan process. Islands will become smaller islands, but will not be relocated, and in no event will the fill area expand; the fill boundary is a very strict limit. There is no evidence that the County has ever violated a fill boundary established in a permit. The 4:1 slope was based on the type of fill proposed for the project and to maximize project features. Mr. Thomas has successfully used 4:1 slopes with non-compacted fill in the Lagoon, both at Snook Island in its as-built state and at other projects. The islands at Snook Island are similar to those proposed. Other areas in the Lagoon have held slopes steeper than 4:1 with the same type of fill. Therefore, Mr. Thomas opined the 4:1 slope would hold. In rendering this opinion, he explained that the currents in the project vicinity are only around 1.2 knots. Because currents slow near the bottom, the 4:1 slope for the seagrass elevations on the bottom will not de- stabilize. Mr. Thomas addressed the contention that a change in water flow velocity would cause sediment to deposit on existing seagrass. The oyster reefs are rubble structures that allow the water to flow through. If any sediment flows through, it will deposit on the north side of the oyster bar, rather than on the seagrass beds. Given these considerations, the evidence supports a finding that the project will function as proposed. Finally, paragraph (1)(j) requires that the County provide reasonable assurance that it has the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. The evidence supports a finding that the County has complied with this requirement. In summary, the evidence supports a finding that the County has given reasonable assurance that the project satisfies the criteria in Rule 40E-4.301. b. Rule 40E-4.302 In addition to the conditions of Rule 40E-4.301, the County must provide reasonable assurance that the construction of the proposed project will not be contrary to the public interest. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)1.-7. Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)1. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Trump first contends that the project will increase the mosquito population. The evidence shows, however, that the mangroves will be placed below the mean high water mark and therefore no increase in mosquitoes should occur. Also, the design of the project, coupled with the local mosquito control program, should ensure that there will be no increase in mosquito population or a risk to the public health. Trump also raised the issue of an increase in trash along the boardwalk area or in the newly-created mangrove islands. The County presented evidence that there will be appropriate trash receptacles in the area as well as regular garbage collection. In terms of safety, navigation markers are included as a part of the project for safe boating by the public. The County consulted with the United States Coast Guard regarding navigation issues. Further, the project will not cause flooding on the property of others or cause an environmental impact on other property. Although a number of Trump residents expressed sincere and well-intended concerns about the project impacting the value of their condominiums (mainly due to a loss of view), BOR Subsection 4.2.3.1(d) provides that the "[Department] will not consider impacts to property values or taxes." Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)2. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Subparagraph 4. of the same rule requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational value or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The proposed activity is a restoration project for the creation of seagrass and mangrove habitats. As such, it is beneficial to the conservation of fish and wildlife and is expected to increase the biotic life in the project area. Besides providing additional habitat for fish and wildlife, the project will add to the marine productivity in the area. In terms of recreational opportunities, the project is expected to be a destination for boating, kayaking, fishing, and birdwatching. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has also recommended issuance of the permit with the standard manatee condition for in-water work. This recommendation has been incorporated as Specific Conditions 23 through 25 Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)3. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect navigation and the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The nearest navigation channel is the ICW. The project is located outside of that area. Subsection 4.2.3.3 of the BOR provides additional guidance on the evaluation of impacts of this nature. Paragraph (a) of that subsection provides that, in evaluating a proposed activity, the Department "will consider the current navigational uses of the surface waters and will not speculate on uses which may occur in the future." Trump residents indicated that in the project area persons are now picked up off the seawall and then travel to the ICW. Access to the seawall is possible from the east and south, although existing shoals currently limit the approach from the south. Large boats do not use the area because of shoals. In general, "[t]here's not a whole lot of boating activity in the project area." The parties agree that if the project is constructed as designed, boats will not be able to travel directly out from the seawall in front on Trump or Flagler to the ICW, as they now do. However, navigation in the area will still be available, although not as convenient as before. As to water flow, shoaling, and erosion, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the 4:1 slope will be stable and will not cause fill to migrate outside of the boundaries of the project into existing seagrass beds. The tidal flow will continue through the area after construction without sediment deposition into existing seagrass beds or destabilizing the 4:1 slope. There will be no shoaling or erosion. Finally, the project will be permanent and there are no significant historical and archaeological resources in the area. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)5. and 6. In summary, the evidence supports a finding that the County's proposal is neutral as to whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others; that the County's proposal is neutral with respect to navigation, erosion and shoaling, and water flow, as well as to historical and archaeological concerns; and that the County's proposal is positive with respect to the conservation of fish and wildlife, recreational values and marine productivity, permanency, and current values and functions. When these factors are weighed and balanced, the project is not contrary to the public interest and qualifies for an ERP. D. Proprietary Authorization Chapter 18-21 applies to requests for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. The management policies, standards, and criteria used to determine whether to approve or deny a request are found in Rule 18-21.004. In making its review, the Department reviews the rule in its entirety; it also looks at the forms of authorization (e.g., letters of consent, leases, deeds, or easement) to determine the most appropriate form of authorization for an activity. Trump and Flagler have raised contentions regarding the proprietary authorization, including whether the application should have been treated as one of heightened public concern, whether the proper form of authorization has been used, and whether their riparian rights are unreasonably infringed upon by the project. Heightened Public Concern Rule 18-21.0051 provides for the delegation of review and decision-making authority to the Department for the use of sovereign submerged lands, with the following exception found in subsection (4) of the rule: (4) The delegations set forth in subsection (2) are not applicable to a specific application for a request to use sovereign submerged lands under Chapter 253 or 258, F.S., where one or more members of the Board, the Department, or the appropriate water management district determines that such application is reasonably expected to result in a heightened public concern, because of its potential effect on the environment, natural resources, or controversial nature or location. On March 13, 2008, the Department's West Palm Beach District Office sent a "heightened public concern [HPC]) memo" to the Department's review panel in Tallahassee,3 seeking guidance as to whether the project required review by the Board of Trustees under the above-cited rule. The Department emailed the County on March 14, 2008, stating that the project would be elevated to the Board of Trustees for review to approve the entire Lagoon Management Plan. The County asked for reconsideration, concerned over timing restraints on grant opportunities. This concern is based on the fact that the County will receive grant monies to assist in the construction of the project and must have regulatory approval by a date certain in order to secure those funds. A second HPC memorandum was sent to the review panel on April 22, 2008. Part of the interim decision to elevate the application to the Board of Trustees concerned the boardwalk connection to the City of West Palm Beach's existing seawall. The City of West Palm Beach is the upland owner of the seawall, sidewalk, and Flagler Drive. On June 9, 2008, the Mayor of West Palm Beach sent a letter to the Department stating that the City "fully supports" the proposed activity, and that the County and the City collaborated on the design of the project, held joint public meetings, and produced a project video. See Department Exhibit Trump and Flagler argue that under the City Charter, the Mayor cannot unilaterally bind the local government to allow structures to be built on City property. Assuming this is true, one of the remaining conditions for the County to initiate the project is to obtain a "letter of concurrence" from the City of West Palm Beach authorizing the County to connect the boardwalk to the seawall. Therefore, the review panel ultimately concluded that the application could be reviewed at the staff level and did not require Board of Trustees review. The evidence at hearing did not establish that the application was one of heightened public concern, given the limited size of the project, its location, and the net benefit to both environmental and natural resources. Compare Brown, et al. v. South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., et al., DOAH Case No. 04-0476, 2004 Fla. ENV LEXIS 112 (DOAH Aug. 2, 2004, SFWMD Sept. 8, 2004). Therefore, review by the Board of Trustees was not required. Form of Authorization Trump and Flagler contend that an easement is required by the County, rather than a consent of use. The standard for obtaining an easement is more stringent than a consent of use, and an easement offers a greater interest in sovereign lands. Rule 18-21.005(1) provides the general policy direction for determining the appropriate form of authorization and reads in relevant part as follows: It is the intent of the Board that the form of authorization shall grant the least amount of interest in the sovereignty submerged lands necessary for the activity. For activities not specifically listed, the Board will consider the extent of interest needed and the nature of the proposed activity to determine which form of authorization is appropriate. This rule requires that the Department should apply the lowest and least restrictive form of authorization. Trump and Flagler argue that the County's project constitutes a spoil disposal site under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)8., a public water management project other than public channels under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)10., or a management activity which includes "permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public," as described in Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)11. Each of these activities requires an easement rather than a letter of consent in order to use sovereign submerged lands. The evidence shows that the County's project is not a spoil disposal site. Also, it is not primarily a public water management project as there is no evidence that the project relates in any way to flood control, water storage or supply, or conservation of water. Likewise, there is no evidence indicating that the activities will prevent access by the public by exclusion. Even though many of the features (structures) of the project will be permanent, the project is intended to generally increase public access to water resources, as well as the islands, boardwalk, and kiosks. Besides raising the issue of heightened public concern, the second HPC Memorandum dated April 22, 2008, sought guidance as to whether the project required a consent of use or an easement. The review panel concluded that the project qualified for a consent of use, rather than an easement under Rule 18- 21.005(1)(f), because the County's project most closely fits the definition in Rule 18-21.005(1)(c)15. That rule provides that if the proposed activity involves "[h]abitat restoration, enhancement, or permitted mitigation activities without permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public," an applicant may use sovereign submerged lands with a consent of use. Because the County's project increases public access not only to water resources in the Lagoon but also to the permanent structures being built, it more closely falls within the type of activity described in Rule 18-21.005(1)(c)15. Notably, all of the County's restoration projects in the Lagoon have been previously authorized through a consent of use. Finally, the review panel concluded that the project did not fall under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)16., which requires an easement for environmental management activities that include "permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public" because of the rule's focus on the exclusion of the general public. Riparian Rights The parties have stipulated, for the purpose of this proceeding, that Trump and Flagler have riparian rights, including view, ingress/egress, fishing, boating, swimming, and the qualified right to apply for a dock, that should be considered. Trump and Flagler contend that their right to wharf out (build a dock) from the seawall, ingress/egress from navigable water, and view will be unreasonably infringed upon if the application is approved. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18- 21.004(3)(a)("[n]one of the provisions of this rule shall be implemented in a manner that would unreasonably infringe upon the traditional, common law riparian rights, as defined in Section 253.141, F.S., of upland property owners adjacent to sovereignty submerged lands"). For the reasons given below, the greater weight of evidence establishes that none of these riparian rights will be unreasonably infringed upon. Currently, while access is possible from the east and the southern approaches, existing shoals limit the southern approach. The boardwalk will further limit boat traffic on the south end, and boats would not be able to cross over the islands. Boat traffic will still be able to access the cove from the north end, and the restoration project will create a boating destination. Trump witness Pike opined that the County's project would negatively affect navigation between the upland parcels and the ICW because the project would eliminate the eastern and southern approaches and leave only the northern approach, which could not be used by both parcels fully. The County's expert, Dr. Nicholas De Gennarro, testified that, during his site visits, he observed boat traffic waiting for the drawbridges using the east side of the ICW away from the project site. Dr. De Gennarro noted that several existing structures are closer to the ICW than the proposed County project, which lies 220 feet away from the ICW. Thus, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that the project would not impact navigation in the ICW. With respect to ingress/egress, Dr. De Gennarro acknowledged that access to the Trump and Flagler properties would not be available from the southern and eastern approaches, but concluded that the restriction represented nothing more than an inconvenience. He noted that the southern approach was already a less preferable approach due to existing shoals. At present, there is very little boating in the area outside of special events. While the project would limit the use of boats directly over the one and one-half acres of mangrove islands, the project will provide a boating destination. Further, both the City docks to the north of the site and the temporary docks in front of Flagler's property –- both used for special events –- will still be available under the County's proposal. There is no swimming and very little fishing in the area because of the degraded conditions caused by the dredge hole. Accordingly, while the project will fill a small portion of water currently available, but not used, for swimming, it will greatly enhance swimming by providing a destination for swimmers. The mangroves planned for the intertidal islands are likely to reach a height of fifteen feet and will be interspersed with spartina. The seawall is located six feet above the water line, making a person's view at eye level already several feet above the water. Trump and Flagler's buildings are built at even higher elevations. Therefore, the mangroves will not substantially obscure the view from either property, even at street level where the view is already partially obscured by existing landscaping. The Lagoon is approximately 2,000 feet across. From north to south around one hundred acres of water can now be viewed from the vicinity. Since the intertidal islands only comprise one and one-half acres, the overall impact to the view of the water body is very small. The mangroves in the planters extending out from the seawall will be trimmed to one foot above the seawall; the County requested the condition and committed at hearing to trimming the mangroves if the City of West Palm Beach does not. County photographs show Trump and Flagler's present view of the water body and demonstrate the comparatively small percentage of the view affected by the one and one-half acres of mangrove islands. See County Exhibits 133a-e and 134a-d. The photographs also demonstrated that sizeable palm trees are already part of the existing view. Additionally, the County photographs depicted the small impact that trimmed mangrove planters would have on the view. The area obstructed by the mangrove islands and seagrass is negligible compared to the expanse of the existing view. Trump and Flagler offered no evidence to contradict the County's analysis regarding the scope of the impact on the view. Trump residents Dale McNulty, Dean Goodman, and Charles Lemoine testified that they personally would not want to view mangrove islands regardless of tree size or the size of the islands. Understandably, after years of unfettered view and an open expanse of water, they are opposed to any type of project in this area of the Lagoon. However, Mr. Goodman acknowledged that he would still be able to see the Town of Palm Beach from his unit. The evidence supports a finding that while the project will undoubtedly alter the view of the water from both Trump and Flagler's property, the impact on view is not so significant as to constitute an unreasonable infringement of their riparian rights. Mr. Lemoine stated that he had a forty-foot trawler that he would like to dock in front of his property. He currently docks the boat at a marina twenty miles north of the Trump property. He prefers to bring his boat in stern first and enter slips oriented north to south. He indicated that he can drive his boat in five feet of water, but prefers six feet; however, he also testified that he has brought his boat directly up to the bulkhead in front of Trump, which is approximately a two- or three-foot depth. The witness has seen sailboats and other boats moored near the bulkhead over extended timeframes. Mr. Lemoine speculated that Trump might seek a dock, either alone or in conjunction with Flagler, but admitted that Trump has never applied for a dock permit. He stated that Trump has had discussions about the possibility of a dock over the last fifteen years and speculated that a dock plan might include anything from the purchase/lease of the City docks to a lease of Trump's riparian interests to a third party. By contrast, Trump resident and former Board member Dean Goodman indicated "the idea was to provide an amenity [for] a number of people that are in the building that are boaters." Mr. Goodman stated that he hoped to be able to have a boat in front of the building someday, but did not own a boat in Florida. Association president Dale McNulty explained that, while informal discussions have occurred regarding the possibility of a dock, no official action had been taken. Mr. McNulty characterized the dock plans as being "sort of in the land of wishful thinking." Mr. Pike, while acknowledging that both parcels would still be able to design a dock for their property, opined that the County's project unreasonably limited the size and configuration of the docks possible. Mr. Pike initially admitted that a safe navigation depth for a forty-foot boat, or even a sailboat, was four feet below mean low water (MLW), but stated that he would prefer to design a dock with an additional two-to- three feet of water below the four-foot draft to avoid propeller damage. However, Mr. Pike conceded that he has designed docks for boats in four feet below MLW and ultimately based his own calculations on an assumption of a four-foot draft and one-foot cushion, or five feet below MLW. Mr. Pike also opined that a north-south alignment for boat slips was a preferred slip orientation. Given the bathymetry in the area and the documented seagrasses, Mr. Pike estimated that twenty slips could be designed for the Flagler property, rather than the thirty-four slips provided for by the County Manatee Protection Plan. He thought that a design might accommodate thirty to thirty-two slips for Trump, rather than the forty-slips provided for by the County Manatee Protection Plan. Based on the limitation on number of slips and configurations, the witness opined that the County's project would unreasonably interfere with Trump and Flagler's ability to design a dock. He admitted, though, that the numbers derived from the County Manatee Protection Plan represent a maximum number, rather than a specified or guaranteed number. He further admitted that other agency limitations may further restrict Trump and Flagler's right to dockage. Without a permit application or plan from Trump or Flagler, County witness Robbins concluded that the most reasonable assumption was an owner-oriented facility designed for the building owners/tenants. The County introduced a graphic illustrating areas available for dock construction, with sufficient depth for 35- to 40-foot boats (-6 feet NGVD) and with no seagrasses present. Rule 18-21.004(4)(b)2. limits ownership-oriented facilities generally to forty square feet for each foot of riparian shoreline, giving Trump the ability to apply for a dock that preempted a maximum of 16,000 square feet, and Flagler a maximum of 14,000 square feet. Under the County Manatee Protection Plan, Trump would be limited to forty slips; Flagler would have the potential for thirty-four slips. Mr. Robbins testified that, in his experience, a minus five MLW is a common depth for docks, but that elevations as shallow as a minus four MLW could be used depending on the type of boats and the dock configuration. Mr. Robbins explained that, even with the County's project in place and factoring in the other limitations, Trump would still have 61,842 square feet of potential space within which to design a dock. Flagler would still have 41,481 square feet of potential space, even considering the need to retain a path for ingress and egress from the Trump parcel. A more detailed analysis of the seagrasses might make more square footage available for dock construction. Dr. De Gennarro also evaluated whether a dock could be designed to serve Trump and Flagler's parcels. The vessel owner statistics for the County indicate that at least ninety-five percent of the boats registered in the County are thirty-nine feet or less; consequently, Dr. De Gennarro focused on boats forty feet or less. Dr. De Gennarro considered the water depths and the existence of subaquatic vegetations and concluded that the graphic presented by Mr. Robbins was conservative, but still provided adequate space for both Trump and Flagler to construct appropriate dockage, allowing thirty-eight boats for Trump and thirty-two for Flagler of varying size. However, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that a dock design of forty slips for each would also be possible, depending on the size of the boats. Dr. De Gennarro proposed that a single, double-loaded parallel dock design would be a good layout for a potential docking facility in front of both Trump and Flagler's property that would be protected by the County's proposed islands, provide sufficient water depths, and provide an attractive facility. He specified, however, that the single, double-loaded parallel dock design was simply one of "many" that might work in the given space. Dr. De Gennarro explained that the existing dredge hole would not be a preferable location for either a mooring field or a dock because the deep muck-bottom would drive up the costs for either type of facility. Accordingly, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that the County's project would not foreclose or even substantially restrict the ability to locate a dock in front of Trump and Flagler’s property. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that neither the right of ingress/egress nor the right to boat in the vicinity is unreasonably infringed upon by the County's project. Trump and Flagler will continue to have reasonable access to navigation. The northerly approach preserved by the County's project will allow for boat traffic to safely navigate in the area. While the southerly and easterly approaches are eliminated by the County's plan, the evidence indicates that the two approaches were less preferable than the northerly approach because of the presence of shoals. Based on the above considerations, the County's project will not unreasonably infringe upon Trump or Flagler's qualified right to a dock. The fact that the project might preclude the design and permitting of a dock that would host very large vessels does not mean that Trump and Flagler's rights regarding docking have been unreasonably infringed. The evidence shows that substantial docking facilities of multiple configurations are still possible even if the County's project is approved. In summary, the County's application for proprietary authorization should be approved. Other Contentions All other contentions raised by Trump and Flagler have been considered and are found to be without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order approving the County's application for a consolidated ERP and consent to use sovereignty submerged lands. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 2009.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether International Paper Company (IP) is entitled to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. FL0002526 issued by Department of Environmental Protection (Department) and whether the Department should approve Consent Order No. 08-0358, for the operation of IP’s paper mill in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2008), to regulate discharges of industrial wastewater to waters of the state. Under a delegation from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Department administers the NPDES permitting program in Florida. IP owns and operates the integrated bleached kraft paper mill in Cantonment. FOPB is a non-profit Alabama corporation established in 1988 whose members are interested in protecting the water quality and natural resources of Perdido Bay. FOPB has approximately 450 members. About 90 percent of the members own property adjacent to Perdido Bay. James Lane is the president of FOPB. Jacqueline Lane and James Lane live on property adjacent to Perdido Bay. The mill's wastewater effluent is discharged into Elevenmile Creek, which is a tributary of Perdido Bay. Perdido Bay is approximately 28 square miles in area. U.S. Highway 90 crosses the Bay, going east and west, and forms the boundary between what is often referred to as the "Upper Bay" and "Lower Bay." The Bay is relatively shallow, especially in the Upper Bay, ranging in depth between five and ten feet. At the north end of Perdido Bay is a large tract of land owned by IP, known as the Rainwater Tract. The northern part of the tract is primarily fresh water wetlands. The southern part is a tidally-affected marsh. The natural features and hydrology of the fresh water wetlands have been substantially altered by agriculture, silviculture, clearing, ditching, and draining. Tee Lake and Wicker Lake are small lakes (approximately 50 acres in total surface area) within the tidal marsh of the Rainwater Tract. Depending on the tides, the lakes can be as shallow as one foot, or several feet deep. A channel through the marsh allows boaters to gain access to the lakes from Perdido Bay. Florida Pulp and Paper Company first began operating the Cantonment paper mill in 1941. St. Regis Paper Company acquired the mill in 1946. In 1984, Champion International Corporation (Champion) acquired the mill. Champion changed the product mix in 1986 from unbleached packaging paper to bleached products such as printing and writing grades of paper. The mill is integrated, meaning that it brings in logs and wood chips, makes pulp, and produces paper. The wood is chemically treated in cookers called digesters to separate the cellulose from the lignin in the wood because only the cellulose is used to make paper. Then the "brown stock" from the digesters goes through the oxygen delignification process, is mixed with water, and is pumped to paper machines that make the paper products. In 1989, the Department and Champion signed a Consent Order to address water quality violations in Elevenmile Creek. Pursuant to the Consent Order, Champion commissioned a comprehensive study of the Perdido Bay system that was undertaken by a team of scientists led by Dr. Robert Livingston, an aquatic ecologist and professor at Florida State University. The initial three-year study by Dr. Livingston's team of scientists was followed by a series of related scientific studies (“the Livingston studies"). Champion was granted variances from the water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for iron, specific conductance, zinc, biological integrity, un-ionized ammonia, and dissolved oxygen (DO). In 2001, IP and Champion merged and Champion’s industrial wastewater permit and related authorizations were transferred to IP. In 2002, IP submitted a permit application to upgrade its wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and relocate its discharge. The WWTP upgrades consist of converting to a modified activated sludge treatment process, increasing aeration, constructing storm surge ponds, and adding a process for pH adjustment. The new WWTP would have an average daily effluent discharge of 23.8 million gallons per day (mgd). IP proposes to convey the treated effluent by pipeline 10.7 miles to the Rainwater Tract, where the effluent would be distributed over the wetlands as it flows to lower Elevenmile Creek and upper Perdido Bay. IP's primary objective in upgrading the WWTP was to reduce the nitrogen and phosphorus in the mill's effluent discharge. The upgrades are designed to reduce un-ionized ammonia, total soluble nitrogen, and phosphorus. They are also expected to achieve a reduction of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and TSS. IP plans to obtain up to 5 mgd of treated municipal wastewater from a new treatment facility planned by the Emerald Coast Utility Authority (ECUA), which would be used in the paper production process and would reduce the need for groundwater withdrawals by IP for this purpose. The treated wastewater would enter the WWTP, along with other process wastewater and become part of the effluent conveyed through the pipeline to the wetland tract. The effluent limits required by the proposed permit include technology-based effluent limits (TBELs) that apply to the entire pulp and paper industry. TBELs are predominantly production-based, limiting the amount of pollutants that may be discharged for each ton of product that is produced. The proposed permit also imposes water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) that are specific to the Cantonment mill and the waters affected by its effluent discharge. The WQBELs for the mill are necessary for certain constituents of the mill's effluent because the TBELs, alone, would not be sufficient to prevent water quality criteria in the receiving waters from being violated. The Livingston studies represent perhaps the most complete scientific evaluation ever made of a coastal ecosystem. Dr. Livingston developed an extensive biological and chemical history of Perdido Bay and then evaluated the nutrient loadings from Elevenmile Creek over a 12-year period to correlate mill loadings with the biological health of the Bay. The Livingston studies confirmed that when nutrient loadings from the mill were high, they caused toxic algae blooms and reduced biological productivity in Perdido Bay. Some of the adverse effects attributable to the mill effluent were most acute in the area of the Bay near the Lanes' home on the northeastern shore of the Bay because the flow from the Perdido River tends to push the flow from Elevenmile Creek toward the northeastern shore. Because Dr. Livingston determined that the nutrient loadings from the mill that occurred in 1988 and 1989 did not adversely impact the food web of Perdido Bay, he recommended effluent limits for ammonia nitrogen, orthophosphate, and total phosphorous that were correlated with mill loadings of these nutrients in those years. The Department used Dr. Livingston’s data, and did its own analyses, to establish WQBELs for orthophosphate for drought conditions and for nitrate-nitrite. WQBELs were ultimately developed for total ammonia, orthophosphate, nitrate-nitrite, total phosphorus, BOD, color, and soluble inorganic nitrogen. The WQBELs in the proposed permit were developed to assure compliance with water quality standards under conditions of pollutant loadings at the daily limit (based on a monthly average) during low flow in the receiving waters. Petitioners did not dispute that the proposed WWTP is capable of achieving the TBELs and WQBELs. Their main complaint is that the WQBELs are not adequate to protect the receiving waters. A wetland pilot project was constructed in 1990 at the Cantonment mill into which effluent from the mill has been discharged. The flora and fauna of the pilot wetland project have been monitored to evaluate how they are affected by IP’s effluent. An effluent distribution system is proposed for the wetland tract to spread the effluent out over the full width of the wetlands. This would be accomplished by a system of berms running perpendicular to the flow of water through the wetlands, and gates and other structures in and along the berms to gather and redistribute the flow as it moves in a southerly direction toward Perdido Bay. The design incorporates four existing tram roads that were constructed on the wetland tract to serve the past and present silvicultural activities there. The tram roads, with modifications, would serve as the berms in the wetland distribution system. As the effluent is discharged from the pipeline, it would be re-aerated and distributed across Berm 1 through a series of adjustable, gated openings. Mixing with naturally occurring waters, the effluent would move by gravity to the next lower berm. The water will re-collect behind each of the vegetated berms and be distributed again through each berm. The distance between the berms varies from a quarter to a half mile. Approximately 70 percent of the effluent discharged into the wetland would flow a distance of approximately 2.3 miles to Perdido Bay. The remaining 30 percent of the effluent would flow a somewhat shorter distance to lower Elevenmile Creek. A computer simulation performed by Dr. Wade Nutter indicated that the effluent would move through the wetland tract at a velocity of approximately a quarter-of-a-foot per second and the depth of flow across the wetland tract will be 0.6 inches. It would take four or five days for the effluent to reach lower Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. As the treated effluent flows through the wetland tract, there will be some removal of nutrients by plants and soil. Nitrogen and phosphorous are expected to be reduced approximately ten percent. BOD in the effluent is expected to be reduced approximately 90 percent. Construction activities associated with the effluent pipeline, berm, and control structures in the wetland tract, as originally proposed, were permitted by the Department through issuance of a Wetland Resource Permit to IP. The United States Army Corps of Engineers has also permitted this work. Petitioners did not challenge those permits. A wetland monitoring program is required by the proposed permit. The stated purpose of the monitoring program is to assure that there are no significant adverse impacts to the wetland tract, including Tee and Wicker Lakes. After the discharge to the wetland tract commences, the proposed permit requires IP to submit wetland monitoring reports annually to the Department. A monitoring program was also developed by Dr. Livingston and other IP consultants to monitor the impacts of the proposed discharge on Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. It was made a part of the proposed permit. The proposed Consent Order establishes a schedule for the construction activities associated with the proposed WWTP upgrades and the effluent pipeline and for incremental relocation of the mill's discharge from Elevenmile Creek to the wetland tract. IP is given two years to complete construction activities and begin operation of the new facilities. At the end of the construction phase, least 25 percent of the effluent is to be diverted to the wetland tract. The volume of effluent diverted to the wetlands is to be increased another 25 percent every three months thereafter. Three years after issuance of the permit, 100 percent of the effluent would be discharged into the wetland tract and there would no longer be a discharge into Elevenmile Creek. The proposed Consent Order establishes interim effluent limits that would apply immediately upon the effective date of the Consent Order and continue during the two-year construction phase when the mill would continue to discharge into Elevenmile Creek. Other interim effluent limits would apply during the 12- month period following construction when the upgraded WWTP would be operating and the effluent would be incrementally diverted from Elevenmile Creek to the wetland tract. A third set of interim effluent limits would apply when 100 percent of the effluent is discharged into the wetland tract. IP is required by the Consent Order to submit quarterly reports of its progress toward compliance with the required corrective actions and deadlines. Project Changes After the issuance of the Final Order in 05-1609, IP modified its manufacturing process to eliminate the production of white paper. IP now produces brown paper for packaging material and “fluff” pulp used in such products as filters and diapers. IP’s new manufacturing processes uses substantially smaller amounts of bleach and other chemicals that must be treated and discharged. IP reduced its discharge of BOD components, salts that increase the specific conductance of the effluent, adsorbable organic halides, and ammonia. IP also reduced the odor associated with its discharge. In the findings that follow, the portion of the Rainwater Tract into which IP proposes to discharge and distribute its effluent will be referred to as the “effluent distribution system,” which is the term used by Dr. Nutter in his 2008 “White Paper” (IP Exhibit 23). The effluent distribution system includes the berms and other water control structures as well as all of the natural areas over which IP’s effluent will flow to Perdido Bay. Most of the existing ditches, sloughs, and depressions in the effluent distribution system are ephemeral, holding water only after heavy rainfall or during the wet season. Even the more frequently wetted features, other than Tee and Wicker Lakes, intermittently dry out. There is currently little connectivity among the small water bodies that would allow fish and other organisms to move across the site. Fish and other organisms within these water bodies are exposed to wide fluctuations in specific conductivity, pH, and DO. When the water bodies dry out, the minnows and other small fish die. New populations of fish enter these water bodies from Elevenmile Creek during high water conditions, or on the feet of water birds. IP's consultants conducted an extensive investigation and evaluation of animal and plant communities in the Rainwater Tract in coordination with scientists from the Department and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Among the habitats that were identified and mapped were some wet prairies, which are designated “S-2," or imperiled, in the Florida Natural Area Inventory. In these wet prairies are rare and endangered pitcher plants. IP modified the design of the proposed effluent distribution system to shorten the upper berms and remove 72.3 acres of S-2 habitat. The total area of the system was reduced from 1,484 acres to 1,381 acres. The proposed land management activities within the effluent distribution system are intended to achieve restoration of historic ecosystems, including the establishment and maintenance of tree species appropriate to the various water depths in the system, and the removal of exotic and invasive plant species. A functional assessment of the existing and projected habitats in the effluent distribution system was performed. The Department concluded that IP’s project would result in a six percent increase in overall wetland functional value within the system. That estimate accounts for the loss of some S-2 habitat, but does not include the benefits associated with IP’s conservation of S-2 habitat and other land forms outside of the effluent distribution system. IP proposes to place in protected conservation status 147 acres of wet prairie, 115 acres of seepage slope, and 72 acres of sand hill lands outside the effluent distribution system. The total area outside of the wetland distribution system that the Consent Order requires IP to perpetually protect and manage as conservation area is 1,188 acres. The Consent Order was modified to incorporate many of the wetland monitoring provisions that had previously been a part of the former experimental use of wetlands authorization. IP proposes to achieve compliance with all proposed water quality standards and permit limits by the end of the schedule established in the Consent Order, including the water quality standards for specific conductance, pH, turbidity, and DO, which IP had previously sought exceptions for pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300(1). Limitation of Factual Issues As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the parties in these consolidated cases from re-litigating factual issues that were previously litigated by them in DOAH Case No. 05-1609. The Department’s Final Order of August 8, 2007, determined that IP had provided reasonable assurance that the NPDES permit, Consent Order, exception for the experimental use of wetlands, and variance were in compliance with all applicable statutes and rules, except for the following area: the evidence presented by IP was insufficient to demonstrate that IP’s wastewater effluent would not cause significant adverse impact to the biological community of the wetland tract, including Tee and Wicker Lakes. Following a number of motions and extensive argument on the subject of what factual issues raised by Petitioners are proper for litigation in this new proceeding, an Order was issued on June 2, 2009, that limited the case to two general factual issues: Whether the revised Consent Order and proposed permit are valid with respect to the effects of the proposed discharge on the wetland system, including Tee and Wicker Lakes, and with respect to any modifications to the effluent distribution and treatment functions of the wetland system following the Final Order issued in DOAH Case No. 05- 1609; and Whether the December 2007 report of the Livingston team demonstrates that the WQBELS are inadequate to prevent water quality violations in Perdido Bay. Petitioners’ Disputes Petitioners’ proposed recommended orders include arguments that are barred by collateral estoppel. For example, Jacqueline Lane restates her opinions about physical and chemical processes that would occur if IP’s effluent is discharged into the wetlands, despite the fact that some of these opinions were rejected in DOAH Case No. 05-1609. Dr. Lane believes that IP’s effluent would cause adverse impacts from high water temperatures resulting from color in IP’s effluent. There is already color in the waters of the effluent distribution system under background conditions. The increased amount of shading from the trees that IP is planting in the effluent distribution system would tend to lower water temperatures. Peak summer water temperatures would probably be lowered by the effluent. Petitioners evidence was insufficient to show that the organisms that comprise the biological community of the effluent distribution system cannot tolerate the expected range of temperatures. Dr. Lane also contends that the BOD in IP's effluent would deplete DO in the wetlands and Tee and Wicker Lakes. Her contention, however, is not based on new data about the effluent or changes in the design of the effluent distribution system. There is a natural, wide fluctuation in DO in the wetlands of the effluent distribution system because DO is affected by numerous factors, including temperature, salinity, atmospheric pressure, turbulence, and surface water aeration. There are seasonal changes in DO levels, with higher levels in colder temperatures. There is also a daily cycle of DO, with higher levels occurring during the day and lower levels at night. It is typical for DO levels in wetlands to fall below the Class III water quality standard for DO, which is five milligrams per liter (mg/l). An anaerobic zone in the water column is beneficial for wetland functions. DO levels in the water bodies of the effluent distribution system currently range from a high of 11 to 12 mg/l to a low approaching zero. The principal factor that determines DO concentrations within a wetland is sediment oxygen demand (SOD). SOD refers to the depletion of oxygen from biological responses (respiration) as well as oxidation-reduction reactions within the sediment. The naturally occurring BOD in a wetland is large because of the amount of organic material. The BOD associated with IP’s effluent would be a tiny fraction of the naturally occurring BOD in the effluent distribution system and would be masked by the effect of the SOD. It was estimated that the BOD associated with IP's effluent would represent only about .00000000001 percent of the background BOD, and would have an immeasurable effect. Dr. Pruitt’s testimony about oxygen dynamics in a wetland showed that IP’s effluent should not cause a measurable decrease in DO levels within the effluent distribution system, including Tee and Wicker Lakes. FOPB and James Lane assert that only 200 acres of the effluent distribution system would be inundated by IP’s effluent, so that the alleged assimilation or buffering of the chemical constituents of the effluent would not occur. That assertion misconstrues the record evidence. About 200 acres of the effluent distribution system would be permanently inundated behind the four berms. However, IP proposes to use the entire 1,381-acre system for effluent distribution. The modifications to the berms and the 72-acre reduction in the size of the effluent distribution system would not have a material effect on the assimilative capacity of system. The residence time and travel time of the effluent in the system, for example, would not be materially affected. Variability in topography within the effluent distribution system and in rainfall would affect water depths in the system. The variability in topography, including the creation of some deeper pools, would contribute to plant and animal diversity and overall biological productivity within the system. The pH of the effluent is not expected to change the pH in the effluent distribution system because of natural buffering in the soils. The specific conductance (saltiness) of IP’s effluent is not high enough to adversely affect the biological community in the fresh water wetlands of the effluent distribution system. IP is already close to maintaining compliance with the water quality standard for specific conductance and would be in full compliance by the end of the compliance schedule established in the proposed Consent Order. After the 2007 conversion to brown paper manufacturing, IP’s effluent has shown no toxicity. The effluent has passed the chronic toxicity test, which analyzes the potential for toxicity from the whole effluent, including any toxicity arising from additive or synergistic effects, on sensitive test organisms. Dr. Lane points out that the limits for BOD and TSS in the proposed NPDES permit exceed the limits established by Department rule for discharges of municipal wastewater into wetlands. However, paper mill BOD is more recalcitrant in the environment than municipal wastewater BOD and less “bio- available” in the processes that can lower DO. In addition, the regulatory limits for municipal wastewater are technology-based, representing “secondary treatment.” The secondary treatment technology is not applicable to IP’s wastewater. Sampling in the pilot wetland at the paper mill revealed a diversity of macroinvertebrates, including predator species, and other aquatic organisms. Macroinvertebrates are a good measure of the health of a water body because of their fundamental role in the food web and because they are generally sensitive to pollutants. Petitioners contend that the pilot wetland at the paper mill is not a good model for the effect of the IP’s effluent in the wetland distribution system, primarily because of the small amount of effluent that has been applied to the pilot wetland. Although the utility of the pilot wetland data is diminished in this respect, it is not eliminated. The health of the biological community in the pilot wetland contributes to IP’s demonstration of reasonable assurance that the biological community in the effluent distribution system would not be adversely affected. The effluent would not have a significant effect on the salinity of Tee and Wicker Lakes. Under current conditions, the lakes have a salinity of less than one part per thousand 25 percent of the time, less than 10 parts per thousand 53 percent of the time, and greater than 10 parts per thousand 22 percent of the time. In comparison, marine waters have a salinity of 2.7 parts per thousand. IP’s effluent would not affect the lower end of the salinity range for Tee and Wicker Lakes, and would cause only a minor decrease in the higher range. That minor decrease should not adversely affect the biota in Tee and Wicker Lakes or interfere with their nursery functions. The proposed hydrologic loading rate of the effluent amounts to an average of six-tenths of an inch over the area of effluent distribution system. The addition of IP’s effluent to the wetlands of the effluent distribution system and the creation of permanent pools would allow for permanent fish populations and would increase the opportunity for fish and other organisms to move across the effluent distribution system. Biological diversity and productivity is likely to be increased in the effluent distribution system. By improving fish habitat, the site would attract wading birds and other predatory birds. Although the site would not be open to public use (with the exception of Tee and Wicker Lakes), recreational opportunities could be provided by special permission for guided tours, educational programs, and university research. Even if public access were confined to Tee and Wicker Lakes, that would not be a reduction in public use as compared to the existing situation. IP’s discharge, including its discharges subject to the interim limits established in the Consent Order, would not interfere with the designated uses of the Class III receiving waters, which are the propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife. The wetlands of the effluent distribution system are the “receiving waters” for IP’s discharge. The proposed project would not be unreasonably destructive to the receiving waters, which would involve a substantial alteration in community structure and function, including the loss of sensitive taxa and their replacement with pollution-tolerant taxa. The proposed WQBELs would maintain the productivity in Tee and Wicker Lakes. There would be no loss of the habitat values or nursery functions of the lakes which are important to recreational and commercial fish species. IP has no reasonable, alternative means of disposing of its wastewater other than by discharging it into waters of the state. IP has demonstrated a need to meet interim limits for a period of time necessary to complete the construction of its alternative waste disposal system. The interim limits and schedule for coming into full compliance with all water quality standards, established in the proposed Consent Order, are reasonable. The proposed project is important and beneficial to the public health, safety, and welfare because (1) economic benefits would accrue to the local and regional economy from the operation of IP’s paper mill, (2) Elevenmile Creek would be set on a course of recovery, (3) the wetlands of the effluent distribution system would become a site of greater biological diversity and productivity, (4) the environmental health of Perdido Bay would be improved, (5) the Department’s decades-long enforcement action against IP would be concluded, (6) substantial areas of important habitat would be set aside for permanent protection, and (7) the effluent distribution system would yield important information on a multitude of scientific topics that were debated by these parties. The proposed project would not adversely affect the conservation of fish or wildlife or their habitats. The proposed project would not adversely affect fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge. There is no Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan applicable to IP’s proposed discharge. The preponderance of the record evidence establishes reasonable assurance that IP’s proposed project would comply with all applicable laws and that the Consent Order establishes reasonable terms and conditions to resolve the Department’s enforcement action against IP for past violations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting NPDES Permit No. FL0002526 and approving Consent Order No. 08-0358. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) should approve applications to renew consumptive use permits filed on behalf of the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (Authority), Pinellas County (County), and Freeman F. Polk (Polk), and if so, what conditions should be included in the permits. The District proposes to issue renewed permits to these applicants with specified conditions, but Polk seeks certain additional condition; to the permits sought by the Authority and the County, and similarly, the Authority and County seek the imposition of additional conditions on Polk's permit. The parties seek these additional conditions to insure that the permitted uses will not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of the applications, and will also not cause the water table to be lowered so that lake stages or vegetation are adversely and significantly affected on lands other than those owned, leased or controlled by the applicants.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are based upon relevant stipulations of the parties: The Authority is a special taxing district of the State of Florida encompassing Pasco, Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, which was created by interlocal agreement on October 25, 1974. It is responsible for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of facilities in locations, and at times, necessary to insure that an adequate supply of water will be available to all persons residing within its boundaries. The District is an agency of the State of Florida which is charged with regulating consumptive uses of water in a sixteen county area, including Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties. It has implemented a permitting program that requires all persons seeking to withdraw water in excess of an annual average daily rate of 100,000 gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 1,000,000 gallons, to obtain a consumptive use permit. The Cypress Creek Wellfield is located on a 4,895 acre site in central Pasco County, lying east of U.S. 41 between State Roads 52 and 54. The District owns 3,623 acres of this Wellfield, and the remaining 1,272 acres are owned by the City of St. Petersburg. Construction on the Cypress Creek Wellfield commenced in 1974, and it currently consists of thirteen production wells, numerous monitor wells, several thousand feet of transmission lines, two 5 gallon storage tanks, a pump station and several buildings. The City of St. Petersburg, Pinellas and Pasco Counties, and the District have transferred their rights and privileges in this Wellfield, as well as the Wellfield facilities, to the Authority by contracts entered into in November, 1973, and August 1974. Water produced at the Cypress Creek Wellfield is sold at cost by the Authority to users which include the City of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County. The water produced at this Wellfield comprises 29% of the County's total water system demand (20 million gallons a day), and 25% of the City of St. Petersburg's total system demand (10 million gallons a day). These water systems serve approximately 470,000 and 330,000 persons, respectively. In March 1978, the District issued a six-year consumptive use permit to the Authority, the City of St. Petersburg, and the County authorizing an annual average and maximum daily withdrawal of 30 million gallons a day from the Cypress Creek Wellfield. The Authority also began a detailed ecological monitoring program in, and around, this Wellfield in 1978. A three-year permit was then issued to the Authority in December, 1982, authorizing withdrawals of 30 million gallons a day, annual average, and 40 million gallons a day, maximum daily, from the Wellfield. The District determined by Order No. 82-28, dated December 1, 1982, that an average annual daily rate of withdrawal of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of withdrawal of 40 million gallons from the Cypress Creek Wellfield was a reasonable-beneficial use, was consistent with the public interest, and would not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of that application. An application for renewal of the Cypress Creek Wellfield consumptive use permit at the quantities permitted in 1982 was filed with the District on November 7, 1985, by the Authority, the County and the City of St. Petersburg. The continued withdrawal of water from the Cypress Creek Wellfield at an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 40 million gallons is needed in order to meet the water supply demands of the residents of Pinellas and Pasco Counties, is in the interest of residents of Pinellas County, and will not cause the rate of flow of a stream or other watercourse to be lowered below the minimum rate of flow established by the District. The regulatory level of the potentiometric surface established by the District for the Cypress Creek Wellfield has never been exceeded by prior withdrawals of water at permitted rates. Continued withdrawal of water from the Cypress Creek Wellfield at an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 40 million gallons will not cause the potentiometric surface level to be lowered below sea level, or any regulatory level established by the District, will not cause the surface level of water to be lowered below any minimum established by the District, and will not significantly induce salt water encroachment. The Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield is located on a 8,060 acre site in north central Pasco County, lying approximately one mile south of the Pasco-Hernando County line, and immediately east of U.S. 41. The Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield property has been owned by Pinellas County since 1976. Wellfield construction was completed in 1981. By agreement entered into on April 11, 1979, the Authority is obligated to sell the County water produced from the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield, but any excess not currently being used by the County may be sold to other members of the Authority. A significant amount of water produced at Cross Bar Ranch is pumped to the Cypress Creek Wellfield where it is combined with that Wellfield's water, and then distributed to Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, as well as the City of St. Petersburg, for further distribution. The water produced at these two Wellfields in combination accounts for about 60% of the County's total water system demand. Following pump tests performed from 1977 to 1979, as well as an ecological monitoring program, the District issued a modified consumptive use permit to the Authority by Order 80-9, dated February 6, 1980, for Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield. The District determined that withdrawals at an average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 45 million gallons from Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield was a reasonable beneficial use, was consistent with the public interest, and would not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of that application. On November 7, 1985, the Authority and County jointly applied to the District for renewal of the consumptive use permit for Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield at the current permitted quantities of an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 45 million gallons. These withdrawal rates are needed in order to meet present and future water supply demands of the residents of Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties, provide water for environmental mitigation, and make up water when one or more production facilities cannot pump at their permitted levels. The withdrawal of water from Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield at permitted rates will not cause the level of the potentiometric surface to be lowered below sea level, or any regulatory levels established by the District, and will not significantly induce salt water encroachment. Jumping Gully is the only stream or watercourse in the vicinity under the influence of this Wellfield, and the District has not established a minimum rate of flow for Jumping Gully. Hydrologic data collected from monitor wells located at the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield show the potentiometric surface has been above mean sea level during the operation of this facility. The District has renewed consumptive use permits for a period of ten years for the City of St. Petersburg, and the City of Lakeland Power Plant. The Authority owns, leases or otherwise controls the area within both the Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfields. Polk owns, leases or otherwise controls the property identified in his amended permit application of July 26, 1988. Both the Authority's and Polk's permit applications were filed on the proper forms, and otherwise comply with the District's procedural requirements for consumptive use permits. Each party has standing to participate in this case. The proposed uses of water which are the subject of these proceedings are reasonable beneficial uses, and in the public interest. The only permit criteria that remain at issue in this case are set forth in Rules 40D-2.301(1)(c) and (2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. The following findings of fact are based upon the evidence presented at the hearing: Polk was first issued a consumptive use permit for Ft. King Ranch in August, 1981, after both the Cypress Creek Wellfield and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield had each been permitted to withdraw 30 million gallons per day. Polk's permit authorized him to withdraw ground water at an average annual rate of 420,000 gallons per day, and a maximum rate of approximately 1.94 gallons per day for irrigation of pasture grass and citrus, and cattle drinking water. A temporary consumptive use permit issued to Polk in August, 1981, was signed by him and states on its face that these additional groundwater withdrawals were necessary because of drought conditions. A modified permit was issued to Polk by the District in July, 1982, authorizing him to increase his withdrawals to an average annual rate of approximately 1.94 gpd, and a maximum rate of 5.9 gpd. Polk's wells are not metered. Prior to August, 1981, Polk did not have man made surface or groundwater withdrawal on his property. As it relates to this proceeding, the property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by Polk is known as the Ft. King Ranch, which is generally located between the Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Wellfields, and consists of approximately 6,000 acres. The Ft. King Ranch is comprised of five tracts which were separately acquired by Polk commencing in January, 1969, and ending in 1984. By 1978, Polk had acquired two of these five tracts. He leased a third tract beginning in 1971, before acquiring an ownership interest in 1981. These three tracts were designated parcels A, B, and C, and are located in the eastern and northern portion of the Ranch. These three parcels were the only tracts owned, leased or otherwise controlled by Polk at the time the first Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield permits were issued in 1978. The western tracts were acquired in 1982 and 1984, and were also referred to as the AL-BAR Ranch at hearing. Polk uses the Ft. King Ranch for a cow-calf operation, and also sod farming and seeding. From 1969 to approximately 1978, there was sufficient surface water on the Ft. King Ranch for these farming activities to be carried out without irrigation or wells. Water holes used by cattle were always wet, and lakes on the property were used for swimming and fishing. His pasture, hay, seed and sod grasses received moisture solely from rainfall. However, Polk did not establish the amounts of water used in his operations prior to the issuance of Wellfield permits. In 1976, parcels A, B, and C were used for these purposes, although Polk has frequently changed the specific size and location of acreages devoted to these land uses. In order to correct flooding that occurred on portions of the Ft. King Ranch during times of heavy rainfall, Polk sought the advice of the Soil Conservation Service in the mid-1970's. He was advised to construct a series of dikes and swales to control the flow of surface water on his property. During 1980 and 1981, Polk constructed a network of swales and ditches to divert and control the flow of surface water from portions of the Ranch needing less water to those requiring wetter conditions, such as his sod and seed operation. The swales interconnect lakes and ponds on his Ranch. He also constructed a levee on the property, and installed a lift pump. These activities have converted most of the eastern portion of his ranch to improved pasture and sod grasses, and virtually eliminated native vegetation. Polk had no professional help in the construction of his ditch-swale systems, or the levee. Beginning in approximately 1980, drier conditions were experienced at the Ranch. One of the ten driest years on record in this area occurred in 1980, and continued drought conditions in 1981 caused the District's Governing Board to declare a water shortage, and impose water conservation measures throughout the District. Some lakes and cypress swamps dried completely and failed to recharge to pre-1980 levels after rainfall. Due to reduced water availability since 1980, including drought conditions in 1985, Polk's calf weights have decreased, while the number of non-breeding cows has increased. Feed bills have increased due to reduced hay and grass production at the Ranch. Polk's bahia seed and sod crops have also declined since 1980 due to reduced surface water levels. Adequate and stable moisture is essential for seed production, and while such conditions did exist on the Ft. King Ranch prior to 1980, they have been absent since 1980. Due to the drier conditions which he noted in 1980 and 1981, Polk filed a formal complaint with the District in 1981. A site visit and pump test were conducted, and the District concluded that the Wellfields were causing less than a one foot drawdown in the Ft. King Ranch water table, and that dry conditions at his ranch were due primarily to drought. In 1985, Polk complained to the District again, and requested that it augment two lakes within the Ranch. After review of surrounding lake conditions, the District declined his request since Polk's lakes had not experienced water level declines atypical of lakes well beyond the influence of the Authority's Wellfields. Studies of water level elevations in the area indicate that the effect of Cypress Creek Wellfield pumpage is quite small when compared to natural changes in water levels due to variable rainfall and evapotransporation. Rainfall in this region is variable, and there has been a significant negative trend over time in surficial and potentiometric water levels that predates Wellfield pumpage. According to J. B. Butler, who was accepted as an expert in hydrology, the swales, dikes and levees constructed by Polk have not caused the water table or surface water level reductions experienced since late 1981. Rather, these are an attempt to divert and retain water on the property, and even in their absence, there would be no significant flow of surface water across Ft. King Ranch from an east to west direction. In addition, Butler testified that a fence line berm constructed along the northern border of the Ranch is an insignificant obstacle to the flow of surface water from the north to south across the Ranch when compared to topographic features, and has had no impact on the water tables of the Ranch. However, evidence introduced at hearing established that as early as 1981, the staff of the District concluded that the swales and elevated fence lines could be aggravating low water conditions by increasing evaporation and leakance, and by excluding surface water which would have entered the Ft. King Ranch from the north. The Authority offered competent substantial evidence to rebut the Butler testimony. Thomas Schanze, who was accepted as an expert in agricultural engineering, testified that Polk's elevated berm along his northern fence line has significantly restricted the flow of surface water onto Ft. King Ranch, and has contributed to the eastern portion of the Ft. King Ranch becoming a closed watershed. Between 1984 and 1986, approximately 700 million gallons of surface water have been excluded by Polk's water control and diversion activities. This exclusion has resulted in a diminished water table within the Ft. King Ranch of about one half foot compared with the water table on the northern side of the berm. Surface water cannot flow onto Polk's property until water levels immediately north reach flood stage. Aerial photographs of the Ft. King Ranch and surrounding properties show that the Polk property is significantly drier than surrounding properties, which include predominant wetlands. If the dry conditions experienced by Polk had been due to pumpage, the same dry conditions should be observed on surrounding properties and lands nearer the Wellfields. However, aerial photos show that lands closer to the Wellfields than Ft. King Ranch are less dry than the Ranch itself. This supports the position of the District and the Authority that Polk's own activities have had a significantly greater impact than pumpage on surface and groundwater levels. The reduction in productivity of Polk's farming activities is reasonably related to his northern berm which serves as a dike, preventing water from flowing onto Ft. King Ranch, as well as drought conditions existing in 1980, 1981 and 1985. The cumulative effect of water excluded from this property and dry weather conditions is significant, and accounts for decreased production. It was not established through competent substantial evidence that Polk's decreased production has resulted from any hydrologic impact of Wellfield pumpage. The District's expert in hydrology and ground water modeling, Robert G. Perry, concluded that significant water table declines on Ft. King Ranch due to pumping from Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfields could not be confirmed. Through groundwater flow modeling and statistical analysis, he concluded that a one foot water table drawdown contour resulting from withdrawals at the rate of 30 mgd for 30 days without any recharge would not reach the Ft. King Ranch. Even in a worse case scenario of 120 days without recharge and pumpage at Cypress Creek of 30 mgd for 30 days, then 40 mgd for 30 days, and finally 30 mgd for 60 days, Perry concluded that the one foot water table drawdown contour would not reach Polk's Ranch. There is some evidence that under a worse case condition, pumpage at the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield could result in the one foot water table drawdown contour intersecting a small portion of the western tract of the Ft. King Ranch, but this tract was not owned or leased by Polk in 1978, when the first Wellfield permits were issued. Conflicting evidence based upon steady state modeling by Craig Hutchinson of the United States Geological Survey was introduced on behalf of Polk to establish that the cumulative impact of the Wellfields could induce a significant drawdown in the water table in the area between the Wellfields, including the Ft. King Ranch. However, this evidence is rejected as less credible than the analysis conducted by Park and Phillip Davis, who was also accepted as an expert in hydrology and groundwater flow modeling. The steady state approach used by Hutchinson is inappropriate for analyzing the effects of wellfield withdrawals on the water table, because the water table is a dynamic system which is never at steady state. The transient groundwater simulation model used by the District is better suited for an analysis of impacts to the water table, although it does tend to overpredict such impacts, since it accounts for changes in rainfall. The Hutchinson analysis is also unreliable since it is based upon artificially derived antecedent water levels, rather than observed levels. Finally, he did not have required predevelopment water table data, and thus, could not verify water table predictions derived from his steady state model. A transient groundwater flow computer model used by Terry Bengtsson to estimate greater potentiometric surface and water table declines due to withdrawals from the Wellfields than predicted by Park or Davis was discredited, and shown to be unreasonable, by the results of a 28 day pump test in September and October, 1988. According to Rick Stebnisky, who was called on behalf of Polk and accepted as an expert in groundwater hydrology, the combined effect of pumping at the Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Wellfields has resulted in a significant reduction in water table and potentiometric surface levels at Ft. King Ranch, with such reductions being greater in the southern areas than northern portions of Polk's property. He testified that drawdowns have been noted since pumping began at Cypress Creek in April, 1976, with greater drawdowns occurring closest to the Wellfields, and for this reason drawdowns appear to be related to pumping rather than drought conditions. However, Stebnisky's conclusions were drawn from an overly simplistic hydrographic analysis which ignored factors other than pumpage, such as reduced rainfall, regional trends, surface drainage and non-wellfield pumpage, according to Robert G. Perry, an expert in hydrology and groundwater modeling. Stebnisky was not accepted as an expert in groundwater flow modeling. It was also established that some of the basic assumptions used by Stebnisky in predicting drawdowns were inaccurate, and not based upon accepted hydrologic principles. Therefore, when weighed and considered against other expert testimony, including that of Perry and Dr. J. I. Garcia-Bengochea, Ph.D., an expert in hydrology and environmental engineering, the testimony of Stebnisky is found to lack credibility. While Dr. Garcia-Bengochea agreed with the testimony of Stebnisky that the potentiometric surface and water table levels on the Ft. King Ranch had been somewhat reduced due PAGE 18 MISSING individual well meters, regardless of whether on-site wetlands are being augmented, and is sufficiently accurate for use in evaluating the impact of withdrawals on the water table and Floridan Aquifer. As a condition for renewal of the Authority's permits, the District has required that flow measuring devices or methods be installed for each augmentation discharge point, although generally augmentation of lakes and wetlands within wellfields is not metered. The allowable drawdown levels of potentiometric surface for the Cypress Creek Wellfield established by the District have never been reached. The lowest levels occurred during severe drought conditions in 1981 and 1985. However, even during these times, the lowest potentiometric surface level was 8.53 feet above regulatory levels. Notwithstanding the testimony of Philip Waller, an expert in hydrology, pumping from Polk's irrigation Wellfields have not had a significant impact on the Cypress Creek Wellfield because Waller's model assumptions are extreme, according to Robert G. Perry, whose field of expertise includes groundwater modeling. These unrealistic assumptions included that Polk would operate his irrigation wells at maximum capacity for 120 days, and that there would be no recharge, even though irrigation, like rainfall, would be expected to result in some recharge. Even under these extreme assumptions, Waller's modeling only produced a one foot drawdown at Cypress Creek Wellfield, which would still be well within regulatory levels established by the District, based upon data for the drought years of 1981 and 1985. Since 1979, Cypress Creek Wellfield has averaged approximately 30 million gallons per day, with the maximum withdrawal occurring in May, 1983, when it averaged 34.2 mgd. From 1981 to 1985, the average withdrawals from Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield remained stable at 13 mgd, but since 1986, the pumpage has increased to over 15 mgd due, in part, to the use of water from Cross Bar to compensate for contaminated wells shut down at the Eldridge-Wilde Wellfield. For purposes of Rule 40D-2.301(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, the District does not consider the use of water that occurs naturally, without pumping or diversion, for use on crops or other agricultural purposes to be, an existing legal use of water, because it does not require a permit. The District does not apply Rule 40D-2.301(2)(e) to protect agricultural crops, but rather to protect naturally occurring vegetation. When an application to renew a consumptive use permit is reviewed by the District, and that renewal does not seek an increase in the quantity of water withdrawals, "legal users" are those present prior to the original permit. On May 17, 1988, a Final Order was entered in DOAH Case No. 88-0693R declaring the District's Rules 40D-2.301(3)(b), (c), and (d), Florida Administrative Code, which otherwise would apply in this proceeding, to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The Authority's applications were declared complete by the District on June 18, 1987, and the District staff recommended issuance of these permits on August 14, 1987. Modifications to the draft permit were made by the District on December 28, 1988, and these modified draft permits are acceptable to the Authority. The latest draft permits contain stated conditions which include the requirement that the Authority directly measure the amount of water it uses to augment the water level of on-site wetlands. On February 22, 1989, the Authority and the District filed a Joint Notice of Settlement in Case Number 87- 4644 by which they settled their dispute as to the duration of consumptive use permit renewals for the Wellfields, and provided for a ten year permit for Cypress Creek, and a six year permit for Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield. Polk submitted his original permit application on April 13, 1987, and then amended his request on July 26, 1988. The District has proposed to issue a draft permit to Polk, with stated conditions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order approving the consumptive use permit applications of the West Coasts Regional Water Supply Authority and Pinellas County for the Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Wellfields, with conditions proposed by the District, and also approving the consumptive use permit application of Freeman F. Polk, with conditions proposed by the District. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-4644, 87-4645, 87-4647, & 88-1169 Rulings on the District's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings 6, 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 38. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 38. 8-11. Adopted in Finding 20. 12. Adopted in Finding 21. 13-14. Adopted in Finding 22. Adopted in Finding 27. Adopted in Finding 25. 17-19. Adopted in Findings 25, 26. 20-22. Adopted in Findings 26, 28. 23-48. Adopted in Findings 31 through 35. 49-60. Adopted in Findings 28 through 30. 61-64 Adopted in Finding 36. 65-68. Adopted in Finding 37. Rulings on the Authority's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 4, 10. Adopted in Finding 2. 4-6. Adopted in Finding 39. Adopted in Finding 18. Adopted in Findings 21, 22. Adopted in Finding 40. 10-11. Adopted in Finding 3. 12-14. Adopted in Finding 36. Adopted in Findings 6, 38. Adopted in Finding 5. 17-19. Adopted in Findings 6, 21. 20. Adopted in Findings 7, 16. 21-23. Adopted in Finding 41. 24-25. Adopted in Finding 9. 26-27. Adopted in Finding 36. Adopted in Findings 11, 38. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 11. 3132 Adopted in Findings 11, 21. 33. Adopted in Findings 12, 16. 34-36. Adopted in Finding 41. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 24. Adopted in Finding 29. Adopted in Finding 24. 41-42. Adopted in Finding 22. 43-45. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 26. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 26. Adopted in Findings 26, 28. 50-53. Adopted in Finding 20. Adopted in Findings 20, 21. Adopted in Finding 20. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 41. Rejected as unnecessary. 60-62. Adopted in Finding 35. 63. Adopted in Finding 36. 64-70. Adopted in Findings 34, 35. 71-76. Adopted in Findings 33 through 35. 77-78. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 79-80. Adopted in Finding 34. 81-87. Adopted in Finding 32. 88-91. Adopted in Findings 26 through 35. 92-96. Adopted in Findings 29, 30, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 28. Adopted in Finding 29. 99-100. Adopted in Finding 30. 101-102. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected in Finding 37. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 37 Ruling on Pinellas County's Proposed Finding of Fact: (The County also adopted the Authority's Proposed Findings.) 1. Rejected since the statement proposed by the County is not a finding of fact, but simply a statement on the evidence. Evidence which was not admitted at hearing has not been considered. Rulings on Polk's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Findings 9, 10. Adopted in Finding 21. Rejected in Findings 6, 11, 21. Adopted in Finding 22. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 25 through 27. 7-8. Rejected in Findings 25 through 27. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 24. 11-13. Rejected in Findings 24, 29, 30. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected as argument on the evidence and not a proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Douglas M. Wyckoff, Esquire 705 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Thomas E. Cone, Jr., Esquire 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 John T. Allen, Jr., Esquire Chris Jayson, Esquire 4508 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Bram D. E. Canter, Esquire 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Peter G. Hubbell, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34699-6899
The Issue The issues presented for decision in this case are: whether Martin County should be granted the re-issuance of Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W for the Tropical Farms Water Treatment Plant and associated wells; and (2) whether Martin County should be granted Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B for the construction of Well No. 10 of the Tropical Farms Water Treatment Plant, pursuant to the permitting criteria of Chapter 373, Parts II and III, Florida Statutes; Chapters 40E-2 and 40E-3, Florida Administrative Code; and the Basis for Review for Water Use Permit Applications of the South Florida Water Management District.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner James W. Slusher, Jr., and his wife, Diane L. Slusher, own a residential lot located in unincorporated Martin County at 2376 SW Ranch Trail, Stuart, Florida 34997. On the lot is a single family home. The size of the residential lot is approximately 2.25 acres. Mr. and Mrs. Slusher purchased the subject residential lot and home in September of 1994 from Mrs. Stella Kassinger. Mrs. Kassinger and her late husband (the “original owners”) had the home built on the residential lot in approximately 1980. When the original owners built the home, they had a hole or “pit” dug in the rear portion of the lot. From aerial photographs taken at the time (1979-1980), and based upon the common practice in the area, it appears that the material from the “pit” was spread on-site to provide additional elevation for, and to minimize the potential for flooding of, the home and driveway that were constructed on the lot. Thus, the original “design function” of the “pit” was to provide fill for construction. The original owners thereafter allowed the “pit” to accumulate water and stocked it with fish so that Mr. Kassinger could use it recreationally as a fishing pond. The “design function” of the original “pit” was thus changed so that it would serve as a recreational amenity on the property. During the subsequent 14 years that the original owners lived in the home, they did nothing further to alter or improve the fishing pond. Over the years, the area immediately around the fishing pond became heavily vegetated and was used from time to time by various wild birds and animals. The fishing pond was used by the original owners for fishing and for observing the wildlife it attracted. After purchasing the home, Mr. Slusher also stocked the fishing pond with various fish over the years so that he and his family could continue to use it recreationally. The fishing pond continued to be used by the Slushers for fishing, for observing wildlife, and as a swimming area for their dogs. Currently, the overall dimensions of the fishing pond are approximately 90 feet wide, by 122 feet long, by 10 feet deep at its deepest part, when filled to the level that was natural prior to the operation of Water Well No. 10. Potable water for the Slusher home is obtained from a well drilled on the property, not from the public water system of the County. The Slusher well is located approximately 33 feet from the home. It is attached by PVC pipe to a pump located next to the home. The original owners caused the well to be drilled. The record in this case does not contain any persuasive evidence regarding the details of the Slusher residential water well. Specifically absent are such details as the depth to which the well was originally drilled, the material from which the well tube was made (i.e., cast iron or PVC), and the current physical condition of the sub-surface portions of the well. Mr. Slusher has not done anything to repair or replace the well since he and his wife purchased the home. On August 2, 2000, Mr. Slusher filed a petition with the SFWMD challenging the issuance of Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B, and the "use of the well." On November 3, 2000, Mr. Slusher filed an amended petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings, challenging the issuance of Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W and Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B. Martin County (“the County”) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, established in 1925 pursuant to Section 7.43, Florida Statutes, and Section 1, Chapter 10180, Laws of Florida. SFWMD is an independent state agency, operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. SFWMD originally issued Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W to the County on April 15, 1993. The “water use permit” was for wells and associated equipment at the Tropical Farms Water Treatment Plant (“Tropical Farms WTP”). SFWMD re-issued Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W to the County on March 14, 1996. The re-issued “water use permit” allowed additional wells to be drilled and additional draws of water by the County at the Tropical Farms WTP. One of the additional wells included in the re-issued water use permit was “Well No. 10.” SFWMD issued Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B to the County on March 28, 1996, allowing the construction of Well No. 10 at the Tropical Farms WTP. In accordance with the restrictions imposed by the water well construction permit, the County drilled Well No. 10 on a site located at least 100 feet in distance from the fishing pond on the Slushers’ property. The physical location of Well No. 10 is essentially “adjacent to” the Slusher property. County Well No. 10 is approximately 120 feet deep and draws water from the surficial aquifer. It commenced operation in December of 1996. It is uncontested that the operation of the well field, especially County Well No. 10, has caused drawdowns of the pond level and of the groundwater in the area of Mr. Slusher's residential water well. The MODFLOW model used by the County in support of its application indicates a maximum drawdown of 7.4 feet. The persuasive expert opinion evidence in this case indicates that maximum draw downs of 7 or 8 feet would be expected in the area of Mr. Slusher's residential water well. The County has acknowledged that the operation of Well No. 10 has had a significant effect on the drawdown of the water table in the area of the pond. County Well No. 10 appears to have been constructed in a manner consistent with the applicable rules. The well was properly drilled and grouted, the correct materials were used, and the well was constructed in a manner that did not result in harm to the water resources. The water use permit was issued prior to the well construction permit, as is appropriate. Although permitted originally in 1993 and again in 1996, the Tropical Farms WTP did not begin regular operations until June of 1997. It is now part of a consolidated system which includes four other water treatment plants, all operated by the County for the purpose of obtaining and providing potable water to the public county-wide. In support of its applications for the issuance and re-issuance of the water use permit, the County provided SFWMD with so-called “MODFLOW calculations” done by a professional engineering firm retained by the County. MODFLOW was developed by the U.S. Geologic Survey and is considered the standard for assessment of ground water resource impacts. The results of the three-dimensional MODFLOW modeling showed that the drawdown effect on the water table of the proposed wells for the Tropical Farms WTP would be unlikely to cause any adverse effect on typical wells used by homeowners, even if the latter were located within the same small “square” as one of the County’s wells. Prior to the commencement of the operation of Well No. 10 by the County, the water level in the fishing pond on the Slusher property would vary only a few inches up or down during the course of a typical year. After the County began to operate County Well No. 10, Mr. Slusher observed and videotaped much greater variations in the water level in the fishing pond on his property. After County Well No. 10 began to operate, the pond water level dropped to the extent that it would become virtually empty of water from time to time. At other times, however, the fishing pond would refill with water, such as in September of 1999, and in August of 2001. When the water in Mr. Slusher's pond gets very low, it has an adverse impact on the fish in the pond; the fish die because they have insufficient water. Mr. Slusher has not done anything over the years since the operation of County Well No. 10 began to attempt to prevent the variations in the water level of the fishing pond, or to mitigate the occurrence of such variations. The County (together with the rest of southern Florida) has experienced several periods of severe drought over the past few years. Yet other “ponds” on other properties in the same neighborhood as the Slusher property have not experienced the significant variance in water level that has occurred in the fishing pond on the Slusher property since the County began drawing water from Well No. 10. The County does not operate Well No. 10 continuously. Rather, it has attempted to reduce its use of the well. SFWMD has never issued any notice to the County that any mitigation was required on the Slusher property pursuant to the limiting conditions of the water use permit. The County does not dispute that its operation of Well No. 10 has contributed to a drawdown in the level of the water table in the surrounding area, nor that such a drawdown has contributed to the variance in the water level in the pond on the Slusher property. Indeed, the drawdown of the water table generally was fully anticipated and predicted in the materials submitted by the County to SFWMD. The use of County Well No. 10 to draw water from the surficial aquifer is not the only factor contributing to the variances in the water level of the fishing pond on the Slusher property. Evaporation and natural variances in the level of the water table also contribute to changes in the water level of the fishing pond. Bentonite is a naturally occurring clay that is mined for a variety of uses, including the “lining” or “waterproofing” of reservoirs, lagoons, ponds, ditches, and other man-made bodies of water in order to seal them and to prevent or minimize seepage or percolation of the water into the ground. Even repeated wetting and drying of the clay does not reduce its effectiveness. Bentonite is widely used and has not been found to have any harmful or toxic effects on either human beings or wildlife. In some applications, bentonite clay is a superior lining material when compared to a man-made liner, such as a plastic or polymer sheet. In a small scale application where the volume of water in a lined pond is relatively low, a man- made liner could be forced away (“balloon up”) from the bottom of the pond by the pressure of a rising natural water table. Lining the pond on the Slusher property with Bentonite (or some similar clay) would create a virtually impervious layer that would separate the water in the pond on the Slusher property from the surrounding water table. With such a lining in place, County Well No. 10 would have no significant effect on the water level of the pond. The water level in the pond on the Slusher property could also be stabilized at or near its normal level prior to the operation of County Well No. 10 by installation of a water supply that would add water to the pond whenever the pond dropped below a specified level. Mr. Slusher first complained to the County about the effect of the County’s operation of Well No. 10 in 1997, when he spoke with Jim Mercurio, a County water utilities employee. Mr. Slusher also complained at about the same time to SFWMD, which resulted in a “field investigation” in September 1997. At that time, Mr. Slusher complained about the lowering of the water level in the pond on his property, but specifically denied any adverse effect on the water from his residential water well. Mr. Slusher began to complain about the water quality and water pressure in his residential water well sometime in 2000. The water flowing from Mr. Slusher's residential water well now has an unpleasant odor, taste, and color, and the water causes rust stains. The water pressure of the water flowing from Mr. Slusher's residential water well is less than it was before the construction of County Well No. 10. The rust stains, odor, taste, and color are all due to iron oxidation of the water drawn from the well on the Slusher property. The County regularly experiences similar problems with iron oxidation in the water that it draws from its own wells in the same area as the Slusher property, which the County must treat at the Tropical Farms WTP. The problem of iron oxidation (and accompanying odor and taste deficiencies) in the water is thus not unique to the water drawn from the well on the Slusher property. Iron oxidation in well water is not harmful to human beings. The evidence in this case does not include any evidence of any testing of the water quality of the water coming from the Slusher residential well. Similarly, there is no persuasive evidence as to the current condition of the sub- surface portions of the Slusher residential well. Further, the evidence regarding the cause of any deterioration of the water quality and/or the water pressure of the Slusher residential water well is both anecdotal and speculative, and is not a persuasive basis for determining the cause of any deterioration of the water quality and/or water pressure of the subject residential well. Specifically, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the water quality and water pressure deterioration complained of by Mr. Slusher are a result of the operation of County Well No. 10. Such deterioration could be caused by other circumstances or conditions, including the uninspected sub-surface condition of Slusher's residential water well. The water quality and water pressure problems currently experienced by Mr. Slusher could be minimized or eliminated by connecting his residence to the residential water supply system operated by the County. A branch of the County's public water system already exists in Mr. Slusher's neighborhood within a few hundred feet of his property. The application and information provided to SFWMD by the County were determined by SFWMD to provide “reasonable assurances” that existing legal users would not be adversely affected by the proposed wells or water treatment facility.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order issuing Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B and re- issuing Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W to Martin County, subject to the general and special conditions set forth therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 31st day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard K. Heims, Esquire Virginia P. Sherlock, Esquire Littman, Sherlock & Heims, P.A. 618 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 5 Post Office Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995-1197 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 David A. Acton, Esquire Senior Assistant County Attorney Martin County Administrative Center 2401 Southeast Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-3397 Frank R. Finch, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
Findings Of Fact Harold Click and Harold Peterson, Petitioners, are sole owners of property which borders Dunn's Creek, one of the largest tributaries to the St. John's River in Putnam County, and which is described as Lots 80, 88, and 89, Section 38, Township 11 South, Range 27 East. Dunn's Creek is a Class III water body of the state. Petitioners applied for a dredge and fill permit initially in 1980 but Respondent issued an Intent to Deny in January, 1981. A second permit application was submitted in 1982 on behalf of Petitioners following a site visit by representatives of Respondent in June, 1981, but again an Intent to Deny was issued in September, 1982. A third application was submitted on or about May 3, 1984, following another site visit by Respondent's representatives, but the Intent to Deny which resulted in this hearing was issued on December 5, 1984. During these site visits, Respondent's representatives offered suggestions about what might be an acceptable project but gave no assurances that the application, as submitted on May 3, 1984, would be permitted. The project which Petitioners now propose would include the placement of pilings and other fill materials within the waters and landward extent of the waters of the state which would result in the alteration of at least 10,000 square feet of the swamp floodplain community of Dunn's Creek. This proposed filling will degrade the water quality of the areas affected by replacing periodically inundated wetlands with uplands. Although the project also includes construction of a fill road with a bridge over a natural slough on Click's lot, Respondent's expert witness Tyler testified that this portion of the project alone would not have resulted in the Intent to Deny. According to Tyler, the key area of objection was the .23 acres Petitioners proposed to fill which was within Respondent's jurisdiction and which would have widened an already existing berm. This widening would have allowed the placement of two septic tanks and two, dwellings on pilings on the property and an access driveway through Click's portion of the property to Peterson's. As proposed, fill was to be placed over a total of .35 acres, with .23 acres being in the waters of the state or to the landward extent of waters of the state. Bald cypress trees or other species listed in Rule 17-4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code, are present in part of the wetland area occupied by the project site in greater numbers, biomass, and aerial extent than competing plant species or communities. Without appropriate pollution control measures, the proposed project could reasonably be expected to result in an adverse change in the biological integrity, bacteriological quality, biochemical oxygen demand and the concentration of dissolved oxygen, turbidity and nutrients in some of the waters on the project site, in Dunn's Creek, and in discharge areas elsewhere. The filling associated with the project can be expected to have a long- term detrimental impact on water quality and biological resources, according to Respondent's expert witness Deuerling. Natural habitats and rainwater storage areas would be destroyed or detrimentally altered, as would the natural filtration function performed by the swamp areas to be filled. In the immediate vicinity of Petitioners' lots, Respondent has denied two dredge and fill permits and there are an additional two permit applications which are pending. Deuerling has also performed site visits at three other locations along Dunn's Creek in the immediate vicinity of Petitioners' lots, and it can be expected that other permit applications for similar projects will be submitted if Petitioners are granted a permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioners' application for a permit. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter B. Heebner, Esquire 523 North Halifax Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018 Ross S. Burnaman Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the applicants own the property in question? Whether the project would comply with the criteria of the South Florida Water Management District contained in Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Systems, specifically Sections 3.1.3 and 3.2? Whether flood protection would be inadequate or septic tanks unsuitable or whether the public health and safety would be compromised or the ultimate purchasers be deprived of usage of the property due to inundation in violation of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (1981), or Rule 40E-4.301(1), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Williamson and Messrs. Leggett and Collins hold in fee simple a triangular 117.24-acre parcel in Okeechobee County as tenants in common under a warranty deed executed in their favor by one W. C. Sherman. They propose to develop the property as a trailer park (complete with airstrip) large enough to accommodate 109 trailers. To this end, soil would be dug up from the center of the property and used to raise the elevation of the surrounding land above the 100-year floodplain. (T. 47) The applicants have a dredging permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation authorizing them to excavate 629,889 cubic yards. They are proposing to dig to a depth of 76 feet below ground. This would create an 18-acre body of water ("Poe's Lake") which would overflow a V-notched weir into a county canal. The county canal would take the water to C- 38, one of the large canals to which the Kissimmee River has been relegated, at a point about 18 miles upstream from Lake Okeechobee. Runoff would wash over residential lots and roadways; the site would be graded to assure drainage into Poe's Lake. The minimum road crest elevation would be 30 feet NGVD ("[a]round twenty-nine feet" T.52), as compared to the control elevation for surface waters of 28.5 feet NGVD. WATER QUALITY The developers plan septic tanks for wastewater treatment. At the close of all the evidence, counsel for the applicants stated that sanitary sewers could be installed instead. Respondents' Proposed Recommended Order, p. With all the housing units in use, at least 10,900 gallons of effluent would seep into the ground from the tanks daily. There would be some evapotranspiration, but all the chemicals dissolved in the effluent would eventually end up in the groundwater. During the dry season, septic tank effluent would cause mounding of the groundwater and some groundwater movement toward, and eventual seepage into, Poe's Lake. The eventual result would be eutrophication and the growth of algae or macrophytes on the surface of Poe's Lake. This would cause dissolved oxygen violations in Poe's Lake. Discharges from the lake would inevitably occur, aggravating the situation in C-38, which already experiences dissolved oxygen levels below 5.0 milligrams per liter in the rainy summer months. Some fraction of the nutrients in the effluent from the septic tanks would ultimately reach Lake Okeechobee itself. The sheer depth of the excavation would create another water quality problem. Under the anaerobic conditions that would obtain at the bottom of Poe's Lake, bacteria acting on naturally occurring sulfates would produce hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and various other reduced organic nitrogen compounds. These substances are toxic to human beings and would, in some indeterminate quantity, enter the groundwater from Poe's Lake. This would affect the taste and perhaps the potability of water from any well nearby. It would be "possible to design a better system where there would be nutrient removal and a greatly reduced probability of violation of the dissolved oxygen criterion and obviation of the potential for ground water contamination." (T. 200) Installation of a baffle on the weir would serve to prevent buoyant debris from entering surface waters of the state. BASIS OF REVIEW Official recognition was taken of the "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications Within the South Florid Water Management District," parts of which all parties agree pertain in the present proceedings. Among the criteria stated in this document are: 3.1.3 Waste and Wastewater Service - Potable water and wastewater facilities must be identified. The Applicant for a Surface Water Management Permit must provide information on how these services are to be provided. If wastewater disposal is accomplished on-site, additional information will normally be requested regarding separation of waste and storm systems. 3.2.1.4 Flood protection - Building floors shall be above the 100 year flood elevations, as determined from the most appropriate information, including Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Both tidal flooding and the 100 year, 3 day storm event shall be considered in determining elevations. b. Commercial and industrial projects to be subdivided for sale are required to have installed by the permittee, as a minimum, the required water quality system for one inch of runoff detention or one half inch of runoff retention from the total developed site. State standards - Projects shall be designed so that discharges will meet State water quality standards, as set forth in Chapter 17-3, Retention/detention criteria - 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 runoff from the developed project, or the total runoff from a 3-year, 1-hour rainfall event, whichever is greater. Dry detention volume shall be provided equal to 75 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. Retention volume shall be provided equal to 50 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. 3.2.4.1 Discharge structures should include gratings for safety and maintenance purposes. The use of trash collection screens is desirable. Discharge structures shall include a "baffle" system to encourage discharge from the center of the water column rather than the top or bottom. 3.2.4.4.2 b. Control elevations should be no higher than 2 feet below the minimum road centerline elevation in the area served by the control device in order to protect the road subgrade. Simply detaining runoff before discharging it offsite will not insure that the water quality standards set forth in Chapter 17-3 will be met. Whether the standards are met depends on, among other things, the composition of the runoff. FWF'S INTEREST Among the purposes of the FWF, as stated in its charter, Shall be to further advance the cause of conservation in environmental protection, to perpetuate and conserve fish and wildlife, oil, water, clean air, other resources of the State and so manage the use of all natural resources, that this generation and posterity will receive the maximum benefit from the same. (T. 248-9) Four or five thousand Floridians belong to FWF. FWF members "make use" (T. 250) of the waters of Lake Okeechobee, the Kissimmee River and specifically of the waters in C-38. PROPOSED FINDINGS CONSIDERED The applicants and FWF filed post hearing memoranda and proposed recommended orders including proposed findings of fact which have been considered in preparation of the foregoing findings of fact. They have been adopted, in substance, for the most part. To the extent they have been rejected, they have been deemed unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative or subordinate.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That SFWMD deny the pending application for surface water management permit. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis J. Powers, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley, Criser & Stewart 400 South County Road Palm Beach 33480 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 325-C Clematis Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Irene Kennedy Quincey, Esquire 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Charles P. Houston, Esquire 324 Datura Street, Suite 106 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
