Findings Of Fact On May 24, 1994, Respondent, Jeff Dyson, applied for a dredge and fill permit from the Department to place an unspecified volume of fill within an historically-existing drainage ditch which carries water to the St. Johns River. The proposed project would direct the drainage currently flowing through the ditch into a 15-inch culvert, which would be installed on the property identified as Lot 3 of Riverwood Subdivision. Swales and structures associated with the culvert are to be constructed during the project and are considered a part of the proposal. See Department's Exhibit 1. The proposed project would place fill in waters of the State, thereby necessitating the Department's approval of the permit. The proposed project, as stated above, is located on Lot 3 of Riverwood Subdivision. The Petitioner owns Lot 4 of Riverwood Subdivision which is located to the east and downstream of the proposed project. The proposed project is located in Riverwood Subdivision which is already developed and single- family residences have been built on both of the lots adjacent to Lot 3. Respondent, Jeff Dyson, seeks the permit in order to develop Lot 3 and build a house on it. The drainage ditch which would be filled runs west to east across the center of Lot 3 and is between four and six feet wide. The depth of this 4itch increases as it moves west to east, reaching a depth of four feet at the eastern edge of the property, where it adjoins the Petitioner's lot. The proposed project would re-route the storm water runoff, which flows into the drainage ditch, around the single-family residence which Respondent, Jeff Dyson, proposes to build. The storm water runoff would be routed through a buried 15-inch culvert from the point of intersection of the existing ditch on the western boundary of the property to the point of discharge at the intersection of the existing ditch and the eastern boundary of the property. Filling of the drainage ditch previously was permitted by the Department in 1984 as part of the subdivision's development plan which authorized Robert A. Weyand to fill the ditch and construct along the southern boundary of the subdivision a swale which would redirect the then-existing drainage through the swale. The swale was constructed; however, the ditch was never filled. The swale carries the majority of the drainage entering the subdivision under Pine Street down the southern boundary of the subdivision to the St. John's River, Two 24-inch culverts under Riverwood Avenue remain from the drainage system which predates Mr. Weyand's permit. According to Mr. Potter, this old drainage system carries peak loads into the drainage ditch which Respondent, Jeff Dyson, proposes to fill at Lot 3. The 24-inch culverts were installed when the subdivision was developed in 1981; however, one of the culverts is completely blocked and the other is only partially open. Contrary to Mr. Potter's assertions about peak loads, the ditch collects water in light rains, and storm water pools on the southwesterly side of Riverwood Avenue and overflows Riverwood Avenue into the ditch flowing easterly in the direction of the proposed project. Riverwood Avenue, the only street in the subdivision, was designed to direct storm water along its curb and gutter system from west to east. This water adds to the flow over Riverwood Avenue at the point of the culvert where it joins with water running in the old drainage system and flows into the drainage ditch. The project, as designed by Mr. Potter, would not adversely effect the quantity of water east of the project. The project was designed so that there would no increase in the rate of runoff with the construction of the proposed residence. The project should not create any flooding downstream because there would be no alteration to the quantity or direction of the existing flows. Mr. Potter used the Department of Transportation (DOT) rainfall intensity duration frequency curves to determine the rainfall amount from the 1.88 acres on the western end of the subdivision upstream of the project. The DOT rainfall intensity duration frequency curves are widely accepted criteria for determining runoff for residential developments. In computing the amount of drainage flow which the 15- inch culvert would have to handle, Mr. Potter considered (1) the rainfall for a ten-year storm on the 1.88 acres at the westerly end of the subdivision, and (2) the flow under Pine Street through the existing culvert, which constitutes a limit to the potential flow into the drainage system at the southwest corner of the subdivision. The 15-inch culvert designed by Mr. Potter would handle two times the amount of water generated based upon the stated assumptions in a ten-year storm event. The proposed project would not increase these existing flows; however, the quantity of water exceeds the flow from the western portion of the subdivisions computed by Mr. Potter which follows the natural slope of the terrain into the old existing ditch system. The Petitioner introduced a video of the storm water collection and flow in a light rain at the location of the culvert under Riverwood Avenue. This video shows that the existing culverts under Riverwood Avenue will not handle the flow of water in the ditch southwest of Riverwood Avenue; therefore, the storm water backs up and flows over Riverwood Avenue at this point into the ditch east of Riverwood Avenue. Other than the ditch under Pine Street and the runoff from the 1.88 acres at the western end of the subdivision, the only other source of storm water runoff is the runoff on Riverwood Avenue. Mr. Potter observed the video and indicated that the amount of water appeared to exceed his computations. The Petitioner testified regarding the water levels in the ditch underneath his foot bridge over the ditch. During significant storm events, the water level reaches the bottom of the foot bridge. The area underneath the foot bridge exceeds the area of a 15-inch culvert. Water flow during a significant storm is unrestricted downstream of the foot bridge, and is not dammed up. The proposed project will constitute a dam on the existing drainage ditch with a 15-inch outfall. Based upon the video of the storm water runoff generated by a light rain, the Petitioner's observations of storm water runoff in the ditch during a significant storm event, and the design of the storm water runoff on Riverwood Avenue, it can be reasonably anticipated that the proposed project will dam up water to the west of the project to the highest level of the swale in front of the proposed project. Although the proposed project will not adversely effect the quantity of water, the water impounded by the project would cause a significant flooding problem for the upstream property owner. The design of the culvert does not provide for protection against children being pulled into the culvert system. The water impounded by the proposed culvert system would be an attraction to children who would be at risk of being pulled into the culvert. It is particularly dangerous because the ditch is much shallower southwest of Riverwood Avenue, and when flooded, the depth of the ditch northeast of Riverwood Avenue is not apparent. The water quality standards are currently being met at the site of the proposed project. The proposed project, as constructed, is not expected to cause any water quality violations. The permit contains conditions designed to maintain water quality during actual construction. These conditions include General Conditions No. 4 and 5 and Special Conditions 5- 10. Reasonable assurances were provided that water-quality standards will not be violated by the proposed project if built in accordance with the designs submitted. The design of the 15-inch culvert includes a 90 degree change of direction before connecting to the outfall on Lot 4. This 90-degree change in direction will dissipate the energy of the water, reducing the likelihood of scouring or erosion at the outfall point. Although the project is designed to eliminate scouring, the Department has included a condition in the permit, which requires Respondent, Jeff Dyson, to correct scouring, shoaling, or other alterations of the downstream portion of the drainage way. The flooding to the upstream property owner can be minimized by lowering the level of the swale in the front of the project to create an emergency spillway. The applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the water quality will not be adversely effected, and the proposal will not increase the volume of water. The project will not adversely effect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats. The ditch does not contain any fish or wildlife. The subdivision in which the project is located is almost completely built out. Therefore, there are no endangered or threatened species living in the area. The project will not adversely effect navigation or the flow of waters and will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The project will not adversely effect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity. There are no fishing or marine recreational values associated with drainage ditches. The project will be permanent in nature. The project will not adversely effect significant historical or archeological resources. The current function of the ditch is to convey storm water to the St. John's River. This function will be effected as indicated above because the proposed project constitutes a dam with a 15-inch outfall. If the 15-inch culvert is incapable of carrying the storm waters introduced into the ditch west of the proposed project, the storm water impounded by the proposed project will flood the property west of the project to the level of the highest point of the swale in the front of the project. By redesigning this swale to have a maximum elevation of ten feet or less feet, the flooding will be retained within the approximate elevations of the existing ditch. In addition, steps can be taken to minimize the potential hazzard to children caught in the ditch. There are no cumulative impacts associated with this project. Except as noted above, the applicant provided reasonable assurances that the project is not contrary to the public interest, as defined by Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. The Department uses a balancing test, which consists of taking the public-interest criteria and weighing the pros and cons of a specific project. The ultimate question is whether the proposed project is contrary to the public interest. The Department believed that it was not contrary to the public interest. Based upon the evidence presented, the project has two adverse impacts, as indicated in Paragraphs 16 & 27. However, these can be eliminated or minimized to an acceptable level by the modifications recommended.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department approve issuance of the permit with the added conditions that the swale and driveway at the front of the proposed project not exceed an elevation of ten feet and that the culvert be constructed to protect children from being pulled into the intake. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 21st day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeff Dyson 395 Corporate Way Orange Park, Florida 32065 Michael S. McGurk 297 Riverwood Drive Orange Park, Florida 32073 Lynette Ciardulli, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Al Potter 905 North Street Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are: whether the challengers have standing; and (2) whether Proposed Rule 40E-8.221(2) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based on the parties' stipulations and the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties The District is a government entity existing and operating pursuant to chapter 373, Florida Statutes, as a multi- purpose water management district. The District has the power and duty to adopt MFLs consistent with the provisions of part I of chapter 373. Sanibel is a barrier island sanctuary in Lee County and a duly-formed municipality with a population of more than 6,000. Sanibel is situated at the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River, within the Caloosahatchee's greater estuarine area. Sanibel is known primarily for its natural beauty, including clear blue waters, shell beaches, world-class sport fisheries, and wildlife refuges. That is why tourists come from around the globe to visit Sanibel, and why Sanibel's residents move and remain there. Sanibel actively participated in the rulemaking process for the Proposed Rule from its inception. Sanibel submitted two technical comment letters to the District during the development of the Proposed Rule. Sanibel's natural resources director, James Evans, attended numerous public and technical meetings associated with the development of the Proposed Rule, speaking on the record at each of the public meetings prior to the adoption hearing by the District's governing board. The Town, located on Estero Island in Lee County, is also a barrier island community and duly-formed municipality with a population of more than 6,000. The Town is situated just south of the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River and on the southeastern edge of the Caloosahatchee River's greater estuarine area. The Town is known primarily for its natural beauty, including clear blue waters, shell beaches, world-class sport fisheries, and wildlife refuges. Cape Coral is a duly-formed municipality in Lee County and is the largest city between Tampa and Miami, with a population in excess of 150,000. Cape Coral is bordered on the south by the Caloosahatchee River and has over 400 miles of navigable canals and waterways, all of which are within the Caloosahatchee River's greater estuarine area. In addition, Cape Coral has an assigned load reduction allocation under the Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) for the Caloosahatchee River Estuary (CRE) due to it being designated as impaired for dissolved oxygen and nutrients. Maintaining sufficient flow in the Caloosahatchee River would have a direct impact on Cape Coral's ability to meet its assigned load reduction allocation. In addition to living on or near the water, a substantial number of the residents of Sanibel, Cape Coral, and the Town engage in water-based recreational activities such as swimming, fishing, boating, kayaking, paddle boarding, bird watching, and nature observation in and around the Caloosahatchee River's greater estuarine area. Fort Myers is a duly-formed municipality in Lee County and has a population of approximately 80,000. Fort Myers is bordered by the CRE throughout its entire jurisdictional boundary. Fort Myers owns and maintains a yacht basin (Ft. Myers Yacht Basin), which includes a mooring field and an anchorage field in the Caloosahatchee River. Fort Myers presented testimony that commercial crabbing and recreational fishing have declined and that it has suffered economic harm due to water quality issues. Fort Myers owns the submerged land in the Caloosahatchee River from Marker 39 to Marker 58, and islands in the river. One such island will be used as a park for recreational activities such as canoeing, kayaking, and hiking for visitors to enjoy the Caloosahatchee River. Fort Myers also owns and operates piers and a public boat ramp within the Caloosahatchee River. Fort Myers' dock master has observed declines in seagrasses in the Caloosahatchee River during his 19-year career working at the Ft. Myers Yacht Basin. Fort Myers has adopted a Harbor Management Plan for the management of its mooring and anchorage fields in the Caloosahatchee River. Fort Myers has also been assigned a load reduction allocation under the BMAP for the CRE, and is responsible for a certain amount of pollution reduction over time. Bonita Springs is a municipality of more than 50,000 in Lee County. The borders of Bonita Springs include portions of Estero Bay, which, along with San Carlos Bay and the Caloosahatchee River, is part of the greater Lower Charlotte Harbor Estuary. Bonita Springs includes wildlife refuges, such as the Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve and Lovers Key State Park and Recreation Area. While Bonita Springs' strategic priorities include environmental protection and water quality, it does not have environmental staff or test water quality. Bonita Springs participates in Estero Bay Management and the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program (CHNEP). Bonita Springs provides financial assistance to the Caloosahatchee Citizen Sea Grass Gardening Project. Concerns regarding harm to the CRE and tape grasses are shared by a significant number of residents in Bonita Springs and Estero, including injury to the quality of life and recreational uses such as swimming, boating, and kayaking in the waterways. Estero is a municipality of more than 30,000 in Lee County. Estero borders the eastern portion of Estero Bay. Estero includes wildlife refuges, such as Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve and Koreshan State Park. While Estero has environmental policies, it does not have environmental staff or test water quality. Estero makes financial contributions to CHNEP. Estero is concerned that the Proposed Rule will affect its water quality, which could affect its residents' quality of life. Estero believes it could be harmed by poor water quality because its residents are portable retirees who can move away, or tourists who can choose not to visit. Captiva Island is situated at the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River, within the Caloosahatchee's greater estuarine area. CCP is a Florida not-for-profit corporation representing property owners, businesses, and the community of Captiva Island. Captiva Island is part of unincorporated Lee County and is located north of Sanibel. CCP has 200 financial contributors comprised of property owners, businesses, and residents on Captiva Island. CCP's mission includes protection of clean off-shore water, diverse and healthy marine life, and robust native vegetation along with the protection of mangrove fringe and water quality. CCP works with Lee County on provisions of the County's comprehensive plan, which include the quality of adjacent waters. CCP relied on the expertise of James Evans, the director of natural resources for Sanibel, and on the Sanibel- Captiva Conservation Foundation (SCCF). CCP was advised that the Proposed Rule was not sufficient to protect the environment and Vallisneria americana (Vallisneria) or tape grass during the dry season. Caloosahatchee River and Estuary The watershed of the Caloosahatchee River covers approximately 861,058 acres. The watershed consists of four sub-watersheds, three of which are upstream of the S-79 structure. The Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed (estuarine system) is downstream of the S-79 structure. The S-79 structure captures all the upstream discharges of fresh water that go into the estuarine system through the S-79 structure. Major tidal tributaries of the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin are the Orange River and Telegraph Creek, which drain into the upper estuary downstream of the S-79 structure. Fresh water inflows from these and other tributaries also contribute fresh water into the estuarine system. The Caloosahatchee River was originally a natural watercourse running from its origin at Lake Flirt to San Carlos Bay. It is currently defined as the "surface waters that flow through the S-79 structure, combined with tributary contributions below S-79 that collectively flow southwest to San Carlos Bay." Fla. Admin. Code. R. 40E-8.021(2). Man-made alterations to the Caloosahatchee River began as early as 1884, but major alterations began in the 1930s with the authorization and construction of the C-43 Canal. The C-43 Canal runs 41.6 miles from Lake Okeechobee at Moore Haven, i.e., from the S-77 structure, to Olga, i.e., the S-79 structure. The C-43 Canal serves as a conveyance feature to drain water from the three sub-watersheds located upstream of the S-79 structure and convey regulatory discharges of water from Lake Okeechobee. In 1957, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) prepared a report focused on drainage, flood control, and navigation needs of the Caloosahatchee River Basin, and one recommendation was construction of the S-79 structure. The key objectives of the S-79 structure were to eliminate undesirable salinity in the lower Caloosahatchee River, prevent the rapid depletion of water supplies, and raise the prevailing dry weather water table levels. The S-79 structure was constructed in 1965. It is a lock and dam structure that is also known as the Franklin Lock and Dam. The S-79 structure captures all upstream fresh water discharges that go into the CRE. The S-79 structure demarcates the head of the CRE, which extends 26 miles downstream to Shell Point, where it empties into San Carlos Bay in the southern portion of the greater Lower Charlotte Harbor Estuary. Most of this surface water flow takes a southerly route, flowing to the Gulf of Mexico under the Sanibel Causeway that crosses San Carlos Bay. When fresh water inflows are high, tidal action pushes some of this water back up into Matlacha Pass and Pine Island Sound. Additionally, some water exits to the south and flows into Estero Bay through Matanzas Pass. Salinity exhibits a strong gradient in the CRE. Changes in the watershed upstream of the S-79 structure have profoundly influenced the delivery of fresh water to the CRE. Runoff is now more variable with higher wet season flows and lower dry season discharges. Large volumes of fresh water during the wet season can flush salt water from the tidally-influenced sections of the water body, resulting in low salinity conditions throughout most of the CRE. In contrast, fresh water inflow at the S-79 structure can stop entirely during the dry season, especially during significant drought events. This results in saline intrusion that can extend upstream to the S-79 structure. Fluctuations of this magnitude at the head and mouth of the system cause mortality of organisms at both ends of the salinity gradient. Downstream of the S-79 structure, the CRE was significantly altered by multiple dredging activities, including the removal of extensive shoals and oyster bars. Seven automobile bridges, a railroad trestle, and the Sanibel Causeway were built between the 1880s and 1960s. A large canal network was built along the northern shoreline of the CRE in Cape Coral. To provide navigational access from the canal network to deeper water, multiple access channels were dredged within the CRE. Alterations to the delivery of fresh water combined with structural changes to the tidally-influenced sections of the water body have had lasting ecological consequences. These include the loss of extensive shoals and oyster bars, loss of a flourishing bay scallop fishery, and significant decline in seagrass cover in deeper areas. MFLs An MFL is the limit at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area. The District's rules define significant harm as the "temporary loss of water resource functions, which results from a change in surface or ground water hydrology, that takes more than two years to recover, but which is considered less severe than serious harm." Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-8.021(31). The rule further specifies that a water body's specific water resource functions addressed by an MFL are defined in the MFL technical support document. Id. MFLs are calculated using the best information available. The regulatory agency is required to consider changes and structural alterations to watersheds, and the constraints such changes or alterations placed on the hydrology of an affected watershed. Certain waterbodies may not serve their historical hydrologic functions and recovery of these waterbodies to historical hydrologic conditions may not be economically or technically feasible. Accordingly, the regulatory agencies may determine that setting an MFL for such a water body based on its historical condition is not appropriate. Caloosahatchee MFL For the CRE, MFL criteria were designed to protect the estuary from significant harm due to insufficient fresh water inflows and were not guidelines for restoration of estuarine functions to conditions that existed in the past. The MFL criteria consider three aspects of the flow in terms of potential significant harm to the estuary: (1) the magnitude of the flow or the volume of fresh water entering the estuary; (2) the duration of time that flows can be below the recommended level before causing significant harm; and (3) the return frequency, or the number of times the MFL can be violated over a number of years before it results in significant harm, recognizing that natural climatic variability will be expected to cause fresh water inflows to fall below recommended levels at some natural frequency. The CRE MFL initially adopted in 2001 was primarily based on the salinity tolerance of one valued ecosystem component (VEC). The VEC was Vallisneria americana or tape grass, a fresh water aquatic plant that tolerates low levels of salinity. A major assumption of this approach was that flow and salinity conditions that protect Vallisneria would also protect other key organisms in the estuary. The 2001 CRE MFL was based on a regression model for estimating the relationship between surface salinity measured at the Ft. Myers monitoring station located in the Ft. Myers Yacht Basin and discharge at the S-79 structure. Although the District monitors surface and bottom salinity at multiple stations in the CRE, the Ft. Myers monitoring station is located centrally in the CRE and at the historical downstream extent of the Vallisneria habitat. The Ft. Myers monitoring station also has the most comprehensive period of record of monitoring data available. The fixed data sondes that monitor surface and bottom salinity are located at 20 percent and 80 percent of total river depth measured at mean low water. The data sondes continuously measure temperature and specific conductivity and, depending on the manufacturer, contains programs that calculate salinity. Those calculations are based on standards recognized and used worldwide by estuarine, marine, and oceanographic scientists.1/ The regression model only implicitly included inflows from the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed downstream of the S-79 structure. To address this, during the 2003 re-evaluation, a linear reservoir model of Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin inflows was developed. The regression model results showed that a total inflow from S-79 plus the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin of about 500 cubic feet per second (cfs) was required to produce a salinity of 10 at the Ft. Myers monitoring station. Thus, the 2001 CRE MFL of 300 cfs measured at the S-79 structure would produce a salinity of 10 at the Ft. Myers monitoring station only with additional inflow from the downstream Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub- watershed. However, that additional inflow estimate was highly uncertain. The conclusion was that actual flow measurements over a period of time were needed in order to perform more robust calibrations for the new models that were being developed. The Re-evaluation The District's re-evaluation effort began in 2010 after the Conservancy of Southwest Florida filed a petition requesting review of the Caloosahatchee MFL. At the time, the governing board denied the petition but directed staff to undertake additional research and monitoring to ensure a future revision would be supported by the best information available. The first step was to review the September 2000 Final Peer Review Report (PRR) for the initial adoption. The 2000 PRR identified several items the District should consider, including a hydrodynamic salinity model, a numerical population model for Vallisneria, quantification of habitat value for Vallisneria, and documentation of the effects of minimum flows on downstream estuarine biota. The 2000 PRR documented concerns that the current MFL was based solely on the salinity tolerance of Vallisneria and recommended using multiple indicator species. To address those recommendations, the District conducted studies to evaluate multiple ecological indicators, such as zooplankton, aquatic vegetation, oysters, benthic communities, and blue crabs, in the Caloosahatchee from the S-79 structure to beyond Shell Point. In addition, the District collected flow data from the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed for at least five years to develop watershed, flow, and hydrodynamic models that could properly simulate inflows and salinity responses. When the initial research was complete in 2016, the District published the Draft Science Document containing 11 component studies. In September 2016, the District held a two- day Science Symposium to present the 11 component studies and gather public comment. In response to public comment, the District performed additional evaluations, modeling, and updated the component studies to produce a Draft Technical Document. A Peer Review Panel reviewed the Draft Technical Document, which included the Draft Science Document. The Peer Review Panel has over 150 years of combined relevant scientific experience. The Peer Review Panel toured the CRE by air and water. The District also held a Peer Review Session to engage the public and obtain feedback. The Peer Review Panel's 2017 report (PRP report) stated that the District had "crafted a well-executed and well- documented set of field and laboratory studies and modeling effort" to re-evaluate the CRE MFL. The PRP report supported the 11 component studies, the modeling, the evaluations, and the initial proposed rule language. The Final Technical Document published in January 2018 incorporated five different models and additional science, examining the entire watershed and the criteria itself. The Final Science Document was Appendix A to the Final Technical Document and contained the scientific research and analysis that was done for the 11 component studies, the modeling, and the additional scientific analyses performed in response to public and stakeholder input. The District initiated rule development in December 2017. Rule development workshops were held in February and June 2018 and a stakeholder technical meeting was held in May 2018. The District validated the comments after each workshop and meeting, and revised the proposed rule language. The District published its Notice of Proposed Rule on July 23, 2018.2/ At its September 13, 2018, meeting, the District's governing board held a public hearing on the Proposed Rule. The mayors of Sanibel, Cape Coral, and the Town publicly commented at the hearing. After considering public comments, the governing board adopted the Proposed Rule. The District documented and responded to each public comment, memorializing the information in the Final Technical Document. Later, after the rule workshops and May 2018 technical meeting, the District prepared and presented all of the updated information, including public comment, at the September 2018 adoption hearing. Thus, the District's re-evaluation process was open and transparent. The Re-evaluated Caloosahatchee MFL The science supporting the re-evaluation involved a comprehensive assessment of the effects of diminished dry season fresh water inflows on the CRE. The dry season was chosen for two reasons. First, because it is well-established that the upstream migration of salt combined with reduced fresh water inflow alters the health and productivity of estuarine habitats. Second, because the dry seasons are the times when the current MFL criteria are likely to be exceeded or violated. The 11 component studies targeted specific concerns regarding physical and ecological characteristics. Together they offered a holistic understanding of the negative effects of diminished fresh water inflow on estuarine ecology. The re-evaluated MFL criteria were developed using a resource-based approach. The approach combined the VEC approach and the habitat overlap concept. The habitat overlap approach is based on the idea that estuaries serve a nursery function and salinity determines the distribution of species within an estuary, including distribution during different life stages. The combined approach studied the minimum flow requirements of the various indicator species in terms of magnitude, duration, and return frequency, resulting in the following three aspects of the flow: (1) for magnitude, a 30-day moving average flow of 400 cfs measured at the S-79 structure; for duration, an MFL exceedance occurs during a 365-day period when the 30-day moving average flow at S-79 is below 400 cfs and the 30-day moving average salinity exceeds 10 at the Ft. Myers salinity monitoring station; and (3) for return frequency, an MFL violation occurs when an exceedance occurs more than once in a five-year period. The magnitude component is based on the salinity requirements of Vallisneria, along with results from the 11 studies modeling salinity and considering the salinity requirements of the other VECs. The duration component is based mainly on the estimates of rate of loss of Vallisneria shoots when salinity rises above 10 and the recovery rate of the shoots when salinities fall back below 10. Return frequency was determined based on long-term rainfall records rather than flow measurements from the S-79 structure, which the PRP report felt was well justified. In addition to the component studies, the re-evaluated MFL criteria and existing recovery strategy were evaluated using a suite of hydrologic and ecological models simulating long-term fresh water inflow to the CRE associated with varying management options, the resulting salinity in the CRE, and the ecological response of indicator species that are sensitive to low fresh water inflows. Five models were utilized. Three models simulated fresh water inflows to the CRE: two for S-79 flows; and one for Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed flows. The other two models were a three-dimensional hydrodynamic salinity model and a Vallisneria model. Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed has a number of tributaries that drain fresh water into the CRE. The flow at several of the tributaries was monitored for a five-year period. The measured flow was used to calibrate a watershed model and conduct a long-term simulation. The results showed an average fresh water inflow for all seasons of approximately 430 cfs. The average fresh water inflow during the dry season was 245 cfs while the wet season average fresh water inflow was 613 cfs. Fresh water inflow from the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub- watershed was approximately 20 percent of total fresh water inflow to the CRE while 80 percent was released through the S-79 structure. Petitioners' and Intervenors' Objections 400 cfs Is Too Low Sanibel relied on a memorandum prepared by Dr. David Tomasko (Tomasko report) concerning his company's review of the January 2018 Final Technical Document supporting the Proposed Rule. The Tomasko report, dated October 23, 2018, was in the form of a "technical memorandum" outlining "preliminary findings." The Tomasko report was admitted as a joint exhibit; however, Dr. Tomasko did not testify at the final hearing. The Tomasko report is hearsay that was not used to supplement or explain competent direct evidence. Although hearsay is admissible in this proceeding, it cannot be the sole basis for a finding of fact.3/ See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. The District's expert witnesses, who testified at the final hearing, explained that ten of the 11 component studies identified average indicator flows at S-79 ranging from 237 to 545 cfs with standard deviations ranging from plus or minus 57 to plus or minus 774 cfs.4/ The District's experts performed three different evaluations of those flow results. They identified the mean of all the means, calculated the median of the means, and performed a probability density function. The flow results for each of the three evaluations were 381 cfs, 400 cfs, and 365 cfs, with standard deviations that ranged from plus or minus 277 cfs to plus or minus 706 cfs. The District's experts testified that the three flow results are indistinguishable from a statistical point of view. The District chose 400 cfs because it was the highest flow result, and, therefore, the most protective of the three. The Petitioners and Intervenors failed to present evidence that showed any deficiencies in the District's component studies, hydrologic, hydrodynamic, or statistical modeling, or analysis of compliance data. The preponderance of the evidence established that the District used the best available science to calculate the MFL criteria. The District did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it chose 400 cfs as the magnitude component of the MFL criteria. Inclusion of Salinity in the MFL Criteria The preponderance of the evidence also established that Vallisneria continues to be a particularly useful indicator of environmental conditions in the CRE. It supports essential ecological goods and services, is sensitive to salinity fluctuations at the ecosystem scale, and has value to a variety of stakeholders. The location of Vallisneria habitat in the upper CRE and its negative response to increased salinity made it an excellent candidate as an ecological indicator for fresh water inflow. A combination of field monitoring, mesocosm studies, and modeling results allowed the application of Vallisneria responses as a platform to quantify the effects of high salinity duration in the upper CRE. Component Study Eight reviewed the development and initial application of a simulation model for Vallisneria in the CRE. The Vallisneria model was used to evaluate the salinity conditions that led to net annual mortality, or, in other words, the duration of high salinity exposure that led to decreased Vallisneria shoots versus the duration of low salinity conditions required for recovery. Component Study Seven included an analysis of the relationship between the number of consecutive days where salinity at the Ft. Myers monitoring station was greater than 10 and the percentage of initial Vallisneria shoots remaining at the end of each high salinity period. To further evaluate the duration element associated with the MFL criteria, the field monitoring data contained in Component Study Seven was evaluated with the mesocosm and modeling results. All three sources were analyzed similarly to derive a combined curve showing high salinity exposure duration that is significantly harmful to Vallisneria. The model also provided information that was used to quantify the duration of low salinity conditions required for Vallisneria to recover a relative fraction of shoots after high salinity exposure. Merging the exposure and recovery evaluations facilitated a determination of the unfavorable salinity duration that could significantly harm Vallisneria habitat. With significant harm defined as the environmental harm from which two years are required to recover, the determination was that Vallisneria should experience no more than 55 consecutive days of salinity greater than 10. However, stakeholders expressed concerns regarding the percentage loss of Vallisneria habitat after 55 days of high salinity exposure. In response, the District conducted further analysis of modeling results and revised the duration component to accept the stakeholder recommendation, now expressed in the Proposed Rule, of a 30-day moving average salinity greater than 10. The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that by expressing the MFL as a "flow plus salinity component" the Proposed Rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented. However, the duration component is part of compliance and represents the duration of time that flows can be below the recommended level before causing significant harm to the indicator species Vallisneria. The MFL in the Proposed Rule is a 30-day moving average flow of 400 cfs measured at the S-79 structure. Flow is both measured and operationally controlled at the S-79 structure. However, as previously found, there are other sources of fresh water entering the CRE downstream of the S-79 structure. The District does not control and cannot control these downstream sources, which modeling reveals contribute approximately 20 percent of total fresh water inflow to the CRE. By including salinity, the District can account for fresh water inflows coming from the tidal basin when there are low or no flows at S-79 since the significant harm threshold in the CRE is directly related to salinity tolerance of the indicator species Vallisneria. The District's experts also testified that salinity can be used as a flow component because it is not affected by chemical or biological processes and is an indicator of how much fresh water is entering the system.5/ Salinity is included in the duration component of the MFL criteria and is an exceedance criterion because the science established that the salinity gradient is crucial to the overall health of the CRE. Including salinity in the duration component of the MFL criteria achieves the purpose of the statutory mandate to set MFLs that are designed to avoid significant harm to the water resources and ecology of the area. No Unit of Measurement for Salinity The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that the Proposed Rule is vague because the language does not contain any units for salinity. The UNESCO calculation is the standard equation used by the estuarine and marine science community to convert specific conductivity and temperature data to salinity. The District's experts testified that the UNESCO calculation reports salinity as a ratio, which is a dimensionless number and has no units. The District uses the UNESCO calculation and performs the conversion in a spreadsheet that it maintains. In some instances, certain brands of data sondes are programmed to perform the calculation and provide the salinity number. The preponderance of the evidence established that use of the practical salinity unit (PSU) is not technically correct. PSU is a misnomer, a pseudo-unit equivalent to a unitless salinity number. The Petitioners' and Intervenors' expert witness, Dr. Anthony Janicki, conceded there is no difference between reporting salinity as unitless or as PSU. And although technically incorrect, he suggested that placing the word "practical" or putting "PSU" in the Proposed Rule would reduce confusion and vagueness. However, since the preponderance of the evidence established that use of PSU is not technically correct, the use of a pseudo-unit would actually cause confusion instead of reduce confusion. The Petitioners and Intervenors also argued that the Proposed Rule is vague because the language does not state that the method of measuring salinity is specific conductivity, or that the equation used to convert specific conductivity and temperature data to salinity is the standard developed by UNESCO. The Petitioners and Intervenors essentially argued that members of the public and those who may be regulated by the Proposed Rule are left to guess about the method or methods used to measure salinity. Because the Proposed Rule identifies and locates by latitude and longitude coordinates the Ft. Myers salinity monitoring station as the location where salinity would be measured for compliance, the Proposed Rule language is not vague. The Proposed Rule is not vague because it does not describe the data sondes, what parameters are measured by the data sondes, and how those parameters are converted to a salinity number. Salinity Monitoring Location and Mean Low Water The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that the Proposed Rule is vague for failing to define the phrase "20% of the total river depth at mean low water," and is arbitrary or capricious for failing to include more than one salinity monitoring station. Total river depth or the water column depth is a standardized measurement that is made from the surface down to the bottom of the river bed. Mean low water is commonly understood in the oceanographic and coastal sciences community as the average of all low tides over the time period defined as the national tidal datum epic. The District's expert witness, Dr. Cassondra Armstrong, testified that mean low water can be determined by using two documents prepared by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), i.e., the NOAA tide charts and glossary. The District's expert witnesses testified that "20% of the total river depth at mean low water" is the location of the data sonde at the Ft. Myers monitoring station that measures surface salinity. This is also the depth at which Vallisneria is located in the CRE. Since, the Proposed Rule language simply identifies the location of the existing data sonde at the Ft. Myers salinity monitoring station, the language is not vague. The preponderance of the evidence established that the Ft. Myers salinity monitoring station has two salinity data sondes, the one at 20 percent of the total river depth and the other at 80 percent. The data sonde at 20 percent of the total river depth was identified in the Proposed Rule for the following reasons. First, this is the depth where Vallisneria grows and is representative of the salinity exposure for Vallisneria. Second, it guarantees the data sonde is always submerged and able to record data. Third, it has the most comprehensive period of record of monitoring data available. As previously found, Vallisneria continues to be a particularly useful indicator of environmental conditions in the CRE. The location of Vallisneria habitat in the upper CRE and its negative response to increased salinity made it an excellent candidate as an ecological indicator for fresh water inflow. Because the preponderance of the evidence established that Vallisneria continues to be a particularly useful indicator of environmental conditions in the CRE, the choice of the Ft. Myers monitoring station is not arbitrary or capricious. Water Resource Functions vs. Environmental Values The District's MFL rule specifies that a water body's specific water resource functions addressed by an MFL are defined in the MFL technical support document. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-8.021(31). The Final Technical Document identified the relevant water resource functions of the CRE as fish and wildlife habitats, estuarine resources, water supply, recreation, navigation, and flood control. The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that the environmental values listed in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-40, also known as the Water Resource Implementation Rule, were not adequately addressed in the Final Technical Document. A proposed rule challenge is not the proper forum to determine whether a proposed rule is consistent with the Water Resource Implementation Rule. Such a determination is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Protection under section 373.114(2), Florida Statutes. Consistency of the District's Proposed Rule with the Water Resource Implementation Rule of the Department of Environmental Protection is not a basis in this proceeding for a finding that the Proposed Rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Other Issues The Petitioners and Intervenors raised other issues during the hearing, although not specifically argued in their proposed final order. Since those issues were identified as disputed issues in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, they are addressed below. 1. Elimination of Single-day Exceedance Criterion During the rulemaking process, Sanibel and SCCF sent the District a letter requesting justification for eliminating the single-day exceedance salinity criterion in the current rule. The District staff evaluated the available Caloosahatchee River MFL compliance record, dating back to when the MFL was adopted in September 2001. The District maintains a historical record of MFL monitoring data and reviewed it to determine if the single-day exceedance salinity criterion was exceeded before the 30-day moving average criterion. The compliance record showed five exceedance events of the single-day salinity criterion have occurred. However, the compliance record also showed that the 30- day moving average salinity criterion had already been exceeded before the five events occurred. In other words, the single-day criterion was never exceeded before the 30-day moving average criterion. Based on this evaluation, the District eliminated the single-day exceedance salinity criterion because it did not provide any additional resource protection. The District's decision was not arbitrary or capricious. 2. Not Using the Latest Model Evaluation of recommended MFL criteria and a recovery strategy for the CRE were greatly aided by integration of a suite of hydrologic and ecological models simulating (1) long-term fresh water inflow associated with varying management options, (2) the resulting salinity in the estuary, and (3) ecological response of indicator species that are sensitive to low fresh water inflows. Five models were specifically utilized, including three models for simulations of fresh water inflows to the CRE, a three-dimensional hydrodynamic salinity model, and a Vallisneria model. The three models simulating fresh water inflows included (1) the South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM) to simulate fresh water discharges at S-79, which includes regional operations of Lake Okeechobee and incorporates Caloosahatchee River irrigation demands; (2) the C-43 Reservoir Model, which uses the SFWMM-simulated daily S-79 flow as input and simulates the management benefit of the C-43 Reservoir; and (3) the Watershed (WaSh) Model to simulate tidal tributary inflow from the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed. The Caloosahatchee Hydrodynamic/Salinity Model was based on the Curvilinear Hydrodynamic Three-dimensional Model (CH3D) modeling framework with the functionality of simulating the spatial salinity structure across the entire estuary. The Vallisneria Model took the CH3D modeled salinity as input to simulate Vallisneria growth at critical locations in the estuary. The District did review the more recent Environmental Fluid Dynamic Code (EFDC) model developed for the Caloosahatchee Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and being used by the Department of Environmental Protection. The District's expert witness, Dr. Detong Sun, testified that until 2014, the hydrodynamic part of the EFDC model was not working well. He testified that in 2016, the District still had concerns and suggested the use of the District's continuous monitoring data from seven locations across the CRE rather than grab samples for model calibration. Dr. Sun's opinion was that the EFDC model has improved in recent years, but was still behind the CH3D model in terms of performance. The District's expert witness, Dr. Amanda Kahn, testified that the water quality component of the EFDC model was not appropriate for this re-evaluation because the MFL is about water quantity, not water quality. The water quality component of the EFDC model addresses nutrient loadings, not minimum flows. Dr. Kahn also testified that in setting MFL criteria for the CRE, salinity was not a water quality component. Salinity was used as a water quantity component because it does not change with biological processes and can be a measure of how much fresh water is coming into the system. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the District's decision not to use the EFDC model was not arbitrary or capricious. 3. Seasonality The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that the District is required to set an MFL that varies by season. For the CRE, the District set MFL criteria that protect the system from low flow that would occur in either the wet or dry season. As previously found, the re-evaluation studies focused on the dry season for two reasons: first, because it is well-established that the upstream migration of salt combined with reduced fresh water inflow alters the health and productivity of estuarine habitats; and second, because the dry seasons are the times when the current MFL criteria are likely to be exceeded or violated. The MFL statute states that "when appropriate, [MFLs] may be calculated to reflect seasonal variations." § 373.042(1)(b), Fla. Stat. The preponderance of the evidence showed that for the CRE, it was not necessary to set an MFL that varied by season. Improper Purpose The Petitioners, Sanibel, Cape Coral, and the Town, did not participate in this proceeding primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation. The Petitioners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose. The Intervenors, Fort Myers, Estero, Bonita Springs, and CCP, did not participate in this proceeding primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation. The Intervenors did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to the issuance of an individual construction permit for a proposed stormwater management system intended to serve Phase II of the Petitioner's land development project.
Findings Of Fact Based on the admissions and stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, and on the matters officially recognized, I make the following findings of fact. On October 8, 1985, the applicant filed a notice of intent to utilize a general permit for the construction of a new stormwater discharge facility. This request was denied by the Department of Environmental Regulation by letter of November 7, 1985. Subsequently, on November 21, 1985, the applicant filed an individual construction permit application, which was later supplemented with additional information which was requested by the Department. This original application was the subject of an April 9, 1986, notice of an intent to deny. The basis for proposed denial was that the discharge elevation from the proposed stormwater management system was too low in relation to predicted stage elevations of Little Lake Santa Fe and Lake Santa Fe and thus efficient operation of the stormwater management system would be prohibited when the discharge elevation was lower than the elevation of the lakes. In response to the Department's concerns and suggestions, the applicant modified its application on August 26, 1986, and submitted the modification to the Department and provided a copy to SFLDA. Upon review of the August 26, 1986, modifications to the application, the Department changed its position and at the time of the hearing in this case, the Department proposed to grant the application, as modified. The proposed stormwater management system is designed to serve all of Phase II of the Santa Fe Pass development, which consists of approximately 20 acres. Phase II contains an access road, tennis and racquet ball facilities, 50 cabanas or villas (constructed as duplexes) which will serve as overnight accommodations for a private club, a restaurant and other common buildings for recreational use, and a dry boat storage facility. These light intensity uses proposed for Phase II should result in relatively low concentrations of pollutants in the stormwater runoff. The impervious surface resulting from the construction of Phase II will involve less than 5% of the overall surface area contained in this phase of the development. In addition to serving Phase II, the proposed stormwater management system will also treat approximately 26,000 cubic feet of runoff generated from 43 acres of the Phase I residential development in a basin to be constructed in the northwest corner of Phase II. This Phase I acreage contains infrastructure and a few residential units but many of the one-acre, single-family lots have yet to be constructed. The treatment of runoff from this Phase I acreage is not required pursuant to Chapter 17-25, F.A.C. The construction of the holding facility will have the effect of improving stormwater runoff which currently discharges directly through a swale into Santa Fe Lake. This proposed improvement to the existing system is the result of an agreement between the developer and Alachua County. There are basically four types of treatment being provided in the proposed stormwater management system: Runoff from the tennis/racquet ball facility will be provided in the detention/filtration basin; The first 1 1/2 inches of runoff from the roadway which provides access to the project will be retained in eight-foot gravel shoulders underlain with sand; Retention basins will also be constructed in association with each of the overnight residential structures with treatment being provided by infiltration of runoff generated from the roofs of these structures; and One and one-half inches of runoff from 4.56 acres of Phase II will be treated (via extended settling biological uptake and adsorption) within a wet detention facility consisting of a man-made lake and a natural wetland/transitional area. Every aspect of the proposed stormwater management system exceeds the Department's design and performance criteria, and the evidence clearly establishes that the facilities comply with the best management practices and performance standards outlined in Chapter 17-25, F.A.C. The recreational facilities, roads, and residential units are treated by facilities which will provide adequate detention with filtration volumes or retention volumes. Section 17-25.04(5), F.A.C., specifies that an applicant must provide treatment for the first 1/2 inch of runoff or runoff from the first 1 inch of rainfall. In the instant case, the storage volume is increased by 50% because the receiving waters are designated Outstanding Florida Waters. Thus, runoff from the first 1 1/2 inch of rainfall from the tennis/racquet ball courts must be detained and filtered before being discharged to Lake Santa Fe. The required treatment will be provided in the proposed compensation basin and additional treatment will be provided in a 150-foot swale which will convey these treated waters to Santa Fe Lake. Similarly, in the case of the road surfaces and impervious roofs, the system is designed to collect and retain 1 1/2 inches of runoff from these facilities and treat that water through percolation into the soils before it moves laterally to the lake. The wet detention system is an innovative equivalent treatment proposal authorized in the equivalent treatment provisions in Section 17-25.04(5), F.A.C., and the design criteria for the proposed system has been promulgated by the Department based on the successful experiences of the South Florida Water Management District, which has for a number of years successfully permitted wet detention facilities. The proposed man-made lake has been properly sized and designed so as to maximize the physical, biological, and chemical processes which result from detaining stormwater runoff and promoting contact between the runoff and natural substrates. In the instant case, the man-made lake will provide the first form of treatment. It will then discharge at a specified elevation into a 19,000 square foot wetland/transitional area where natural polishing filtration functions will be performed by existing macrophytes and vegetation before being discharged through a control structure to Little Lake Santa Fe. In order to insure no threat of water quality degradation in the use of wet detention systems, the Department has promulgated policies and design criteria which require a doubling of the storage volumes which would otherwise be required should a more traditional retention or detention with filtration approach be utilized. For purposes of the instant case, this doubling results in the applicant treating 1 1/2 inches of runoff before it allows discharge into Little Lake Santa Fe, and that storage volume is twice (.75 inches) that which would otherwise be required even with the additional 50% treatment required for waters discharging into Outstanding Florida Waters. By employing the wet detention equivalent treatment approach and raising the control discharge elevation to 141.25 feet, the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the concerns that were previously expressed by the Department's original proposed agency action. The Petitioner's proposal, as modified, complies with all Department permitting criteria and there are no constraints or limitations which would preclude the system from operating as designed. The design for this system includes ample considerations for sediment, turbidity, and erosion controls during the construction phase of this project, and the operation and maintenance schedule will ensure continuing compliance with Department criteria. The design is sound, as demonstrated by the fact that analogous facilities have functioned as claimed. The biological and chemical interaction of the runoff with macrophytes contained in the littoral zones of the man-made lake and in the wetland/transitional polishing area will provide valuable nutrient assimilation and uptake. These natural treatment processes ensure that water quality standards will be satisfied and that no adverse water quality degradation will occur with respect to the receiving waters. The concentrations of pollutants in the waters discharged from the stormwater management facility would not exceed Class III water quality standards and would, in fact, be better than the ambient water quality documented in Little Lake Santa Fe and Lake Santa Fe. Even though the proposal, as modified, meets all of the Department permitting criteria, the proposal would be even better if the following changes were made to it. The oil skimmer device should be metal rather than wood. The littoral zone planting should be at 1 1/2 foot centers for the limited area east of the man-made lake where it connects to the natural wetland/transitional area. Reasonable storm event related monitoring should be conducted for one year following the completion of construction of the impervious surfaces specified in the application. Parameters to be tested should include suspended solids, turbidity, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, lead, zinc, and hydrocarbons. Samples (time weighted composite) should be collected at the outfall structure while the system is operating following four storm events during the year. The applicant does not object to making the changes described in this paragraph. The SFLDA's concerns were limited largely to the prospects of a washout due to an extraordinary storm event and doubts it possesses relative to the maintenance required for the system. There was no evidence presented, however, which indicate that a washout or severe disruption to the management system would occur except in extremely rare circumstances such as those attending a 100-year storm. The Department's rules and permitting criteria governing stormwater management systems do not, however, require an applicant to prevent discharges from stormwater management systems during extraordinary events, such as a 100-year storm. The applicant has, in this case, provided the necessary reasonable assurances that this facility will function as designed. The maintenance schedule presented by the applicant is facially sound, and the experts agreed that maintenance of the wet detention system would be minimal. The maintenance and operational features of this proposal are important; however, they are straightforward and the property owners association, which shoulders the burden of compliance, is properly equipped with the powers and authorities to insure successful implementation.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue the requested stormwater discharge construction permit with the Department's standard permit conditions and with special conditions requiring the changes described in paragraph 7 of the findings of fact, above. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th of November 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-1445 The following are my specific rulings on each of the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner and Respondent Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details deleted. Paragraph 4: Accepted. Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7: (There are no paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 in the proposed findings submitted by the Petitioner and Respondent.) Paragraphs 8, 9, and 10: Accepted. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details and editorial remarks deleted. Paragraph 13: The first sentence of this paragraph is rejected as constituting argument rather than proposed findings. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Findings proposed by Intervenor Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 4: Rejected as subordinate, unnecessary details (much of the material from this paragraph has been included in the introductory portion of this Recommended Order.) Paragraphs 5, 6, the seven unnumbered paragraphs following paragraph 6, and 7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Rejected as constituting primarily summaries of conflicting evidence and argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Further, portions of this paragraph are contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 9: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 10: Rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate unnecessary details. Paragraph 11: Rejected as constituting a summary of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. Also rejected as being inconsistent with the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 12: Rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate unnecessary details. Paragraphs 13 and 14: First sentence rejected as unnecessary commentary about the record. The remainder is for the most part accepted in substance with deletion of some unnecessary details and with modification of some details in the interest of accuracy and clarity. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank E. Matthews, Esquire Kathleen Blizzard, Esquire HOPPING BOYD GREEN & SAMS Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Bradford L. Thomas, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Timothy Keyser, Esquire Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32048 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC, are entitled to issuance of a permit by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD or District) for the modification of a surface-water management system to serve the 24.1-acre World Dressage Complex in Wellington, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Charles Jacobs and Kimberly Jacobs are the owners of a residence at 2730 Polo Island Drive, Unit A-104, Wellington, Florida. The residence is used by the Jacobs on an annual basis, generally between October and Easter, which corresponds to the equestrian show season in Florida. Petitioners maintain their permanent address in Massachusetts. The District is a public corporation, existing by virtue of chapter 25270, Laws of Florida 1949. The District is responsible for administering chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, within its geographic boundaries. The District’s statutory duties include the regulation and management of water resources, including water quality and water supply, and the issuance of environmental resource permits. The Applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC, are Florida limited-liability companies with business operations in Wellington, Florida. The Applicants are the owners of four parcels of property, parts of which comprise the complete 24.1- acre proposed Complex, and upon which the surface-water management facilities that are the subject of the Permit are to be constructed. Contiguous holdings of the four Applicants in the area consist of approximately 35 additional acres, primarily to the north and west of the Complex. Acme Improvement District The Acme Improvement District was created in the 1950s as a special drainage district. At the time of its creation, the Acme Improvement District encompassed 18,200 acres of land. As a result of additions over the years, the Acme Improvement District currently consists of approximately 20,000 acres of land that constitutes the Village of Wellington, and includes the Complex property. On March 16, 1978, the District issued a Surface Water Management Permit, No. 50-00548-S, for the Acme Improvement District (1978 Acme Permit) that authorized the construction and operation of a surface-water management system, and established design guidelines for subsequent work as development occurred in the Acme Improvement District. The total area covered by the 1978 Acme Permit was divided into basins, with the dividing line being, generally, Pierson Road. Basin A was designed so that its interconnected canals and drainage features would discharge to the north into the C-51 Canal, while Basin B was designed so that its interconnected canals and drainage features would discharge to the south into the C-40 Borrow Canal. Water management activities taking place within the boundaries of the Acme Improvement District are done through modifications to the 1978 Acme Permit. Over the years, there have been literally hundreds of modifications to that permit. The Property The Complex property is in Basin A of the Acme Improvement District, as is the property owned by Petitioners. Prior to January 1978, the property that is proposed for the Complex consisted of farm fields. At some time between January, 1978 and December 18, 1979, a very narrow body of water was dredged from abandoned farm fields to create what has been referred to in the course of this proceeding as “Moose Lake.” During that same period, Polo Island was created, and property to the east and west of Polo Island was filled and graded to create polo fields. Polo Island is surrounded by Moose Lake. When it was created, Polo Island was filled to a higher elevation than the adjacent polo fields to give the residents a view of the polo matches. Petitioners’ residence has a finished floor elevation of 18.38 feet NGVD, which is more than three-quarters of a foot above the 100-year flood elevation of 17.5 feet NGVD established for Basin A. The Complex and Petitioner’s residence both front on Moose Lake. There are no physical barriers that separate that part of the Moose Lake fronting Petitioners’ residence from that part of Moose Lake into which the Complex’s surface-water management system is designed to discharge. Moose Lake discharges into canals that are part of the C-51 Basin drainage system. Discharges occur through an outfall at the south end of Moose Lake that directs water into the C-23 canal, and through an outfall at the east end of Moose Lake that directs water into the C-6 canal. There are no wetlands or surface water bodies located on the Complex property. 2005-2007 Basin Study and 2007 Acme Permit Material changes in the Acme Drainage District since 1978 affected the assumptions upon which the 1978 ACME Permit was issued. The material changes that occurred over the years formed the rationale for a series of detailed basin studies performed from 2005 through 2007. The basin studies, undertaken by the District and the Village of Wellington, analyzed and modeled the areas encompassed by the 1978 Acme Permit in light of existing improvements within the Acme Improvement District. The changes to Basin A and Basin B land uses identified by the basin studies became the new baseline conditions upon which the District and the Village of Wellington established criteria for developing and redeveloping property in the Wellington area, and resulted in the development of updated information and assumptions to be used in the ERP program. On November 15, 2007, as a result of the basin studies, the District accepted the new criteria and issued a modification of the standards established by the 1978 Acme Permit (2007 Acme Permit). For purposes relevant to this proceeding, the 2007 Acme Permit approved the implementation of the new Permit Criteria and Best Management Practices Manual for Works in the Village of Wellington.1/ The language of the 2007 Acme Permit is somewhat ambiguous, and portions could be read in isolation to apply only to land in Basin B of the Acme Improvement District. Mr. Waterhouse testified that the language of the permit tended to focus on Basin B because it contained significant tracts of undeveloped property, the land in Basin A having been essentially built-out. However, he stated that it was the District’s intent that the Permit Criteria and Best Management Practices Manual for Works in the Village of Wellington adopted by the 2007 Acme Permit was to apply to all development and redevelopment in the Acme Improvement District, and that the District had applied the permit in that manner since its issuance. Mr. Waterhouse’s testimony was credible, reflects the District’s intent and application of the permit, and is accepted. The Proposed Complex The Complex is proposed for construction on the two polo fields to the west of Polo Island, and properties immediately adjacent and contiguous thereto.2/ The Complex is designed to consist of a large covered arena; several open-air equestrian arenas; four 96-stall stables, with associated covered manure bins and covered horse washing facilities, located between the stables; an event tent; a raised concrete vendor deck for spectators, exhibitors, and vendors that encircles three or four of the rings; and various paved access roads, parking areas, and support structures. Of the 96 stalls per stable, twenty percent would reasonably be used for storing tack, feed, and similar items. The surface-water management system that is the subject of the application consists of inlets and catch basins, underground drainage structures, dry detention areas, swales for conveying overland flows, and exfiltration trenches for treatment of water prior to its discharge at three outfall points to Moose Lake. The horse-washing facilities are designed to tie into the Village of Wellington’s sanitary sewer system, by-passing the surface water management system. The Permit Application On May 18, 2011, two of the Applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC, and Polo Field One, LLC, applied for a modification to the 1978 Acme Improvement District permit to construct a surface-water management system to serve the proposed Complex. At the time of the initial application, the proposed Complex encompassed 20 acres. There were no permitted surface water management facilities within its boundaries. The Complex application included, along with structural elements, the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for handling manure, horse-wash water, and other equestrian waste on the property. Properties adjacent to the Complex, and under common ownership of one or more of the Applicants, have been routinely used for equestrian events, including temporary support activities for events on the Complex property. For example, properties to the north of the Complex owned by Far Niente Stables II, LLC, and Polo Field One, LLC, have been used for show-jumping events, derby events, and grand prix competitions, as well as parking and warm-up areas for derby events and for dressage events at the Complex. Except for an earthen mound associated with the derby and grand prix field north of the Complex, there has been no development on those adjacent properties, and no requirement for a stormwater management system to serve those properties. Thus, the adjacent properties are not encompassed by the Application. Permit Issuance On November 22, 2011, Permit No. 50-00548-S-203 was issued by the District to Far Niente Stables II, LLC. Polo Field One, LLC, though an applicant, was not identified as a permittee. On January 13, 2012, the District issued a “Correction to Permit No. 50-00548-S-203.” The only change to the Permit issued on November 22, 2011, was the addition of Polo Field One, LLC, as a permittee. On January 25, 2012, the Applicants submitted a request for a letter modification of the Permit to authorize construction of a 1,190-linear foot landscape berm along the eastern property boundary. On February 16, 2012, the District acknowledged the application for the berm modification, and requested additional information regarding an access road and cul-de-sac on the west side of the Complex that extended into property owned by others. On that same date, the Applicants provided additional information, including evidence of ownership, that added Stadium North, LLC and Stadium South, LLC, as permittees. On March 26, 2012, the District issued the proposed modification to Permit No. 50-00548-S-203. On November 15, 2012, the Applicants’ engineer prepared a revised set of plans that added 2.85 acres of property to the Complex. The property, referred to as Basin 5, provided an additional dry detention stormwater storage area. On or shortly after December 3, 2012, the Applicants submitted a final Addendum to Surface Water Management Calculations that accounted for the addition of Basin 5 and other changes to the Permit application that increased the size of the Complex from 20 acres to 24.1 acres. On December 18, 2012, the Applicants submitted final revisions to the BMPs in an Updated BMP Plan. On January 7, 2013, the District issued the final proposed modification to the permit. The modification consisted of the addition of Basin 5, the deletion of a provision of special condition 14 that conflicted with elements of the staff report, the Updated BMP Plan, the recognition of an enforcement proceeding for unauthorized construction of the linear berm and other unauthorized works, and changes to the Permit to conform with additional information submitted by the Applicants. The final permitted surface-water management system consists of inlets and catch basins, underground drainage structures, a 0.64-acre dry detention area, swales for conveying overland flows, and 959-linear feet of exfiltration trench. For purposes of this proceeding, the “Permit” that constitutes the proposed agency action consists of the initial November 22, 2011, Permit; the January 13, 2012, Correction; the March 26, 2012, letter modification; and the January 7, 2013 modification. Post-Permit Activities at the Complex Work began on the Complex on or about November 28, 2011. Work continued until stopped on April 18, 2012, pursuant to a District issued Consent Order and Cease and Desist. As of the date of the final hearing, the majority of the work had been completed. In late August, 2012, the Wellington area was affected by rains associated with Tropical Storm Isaac that exceeded the rainfall totals of a 100-year storm event. Water ponded in places in the Polo Island subdivision. That ponded water was the result of water falling directly on Polo Island, and may have been exacerbated by blockages of Polo Island drainage structures designed to discharge water from Polo Island to Moose Lake. No residences were flooded as a result of the Tropical Storm Isaac rain event. The only flooding issue related to water elevations in Moose Lake was water overflowing the entrance road, which is at a lower elevation. The road remained passable. Road flooding is generally contemplated in the design of stormwater management systems and does not suggest a failure of the applicable system. Permitting Standards Standards applicable to the Permit are contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)-(k), and in the District’s Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (BOR), which has been adopted by reference in rule 40E-4.091(1)(a). The parties stipulated that the standards in rules 40E-4.301(1)(d),(g) and (h) are not at issue in this proceeding. Permitting Standards - Water Quantity Those provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that pertain to water quantity, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; Will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property; Will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. In addition to the preceding rules, section 6.6 of the BOR, entitled “Flood Plain Encroachment,” provides that “[n]o net encroachment into the floodplain, between the average wet season water table and that encompassed by the 100-year event, which will adversely affect the existing rights of others, will be allowed.” Section 6.7 of the BOR, entitled “Historic Basin Storage,” provides that “[p]rovision must be made to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided by the project site.” The purpose of a pre-development versus post- development analysis is to ensure that, after development of a parcel of property, the property is capable of holding a volume of stormwater on-site that is the same or greater than that held in its pre-development condition. On-site storage includes surface storage and soil storage. Surface Storage Surface storage is calculated by determining the quantity of water stored on the surface of the site. Mr. Hall found no material errors in the Applicants’ calculations regarding surface storage. His concern was that the permitted surface storage, including the dry detention area added to the plans in December 2012, would not provide compensating water storage to account for the deficiencies he found in the soil storage calculations discussed herein. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants’ surface storage calculations are found to accurately assess the volume of stormwater that can be stored on the property without discharge to Moose Lake. Soil Storage Soil storage is water that is held between soil particles. Soil storage calculations take into consideration the soil type(s) and site-specific soil characteristics, including compaction. Soils on the Complex property consist of depressional soils. Such soils are less capable of storage than are sandier coastal soils. When compacted, the storage capacity of depressional soils is further reduced. The Applicants’ calculations indicated post- development storage on the Complex property to be 25.04 acre/feet. Mr. Hall’s post-development storage calculation of 25.03 acre/feet was substantively identical.3/ Thus, the evidence demonstrates the accuracy of Applicants’ post- development stormwater storage calculations. The Applicants’ calculations showed pre-development combined surface and soil storage capacity on the Property of 24.84 acre/feet. Mr. Hall calculated pre-development combined surface and soil storage, based upon presumed property conditions existing on March 16, 1978, of 35.12 acre/feet. Based on the foregoing, Mr. Hall concluded that the post-development storage capacity of the Complex had a deficit of 10.09 acre/feet of water as compared to the pre-development storage capacity of the Property, which he attributed to a deficiency in soil storage. The gist of Mr. Hall’s disagreement centered on the Applicants’ failure to consider the Complex’s pre-development condition as being farm fields, as they were at the time of issuance of the 1978 Acme Permit, and on the Applicants’ application of the 25-percent compaction rate for soils on the former polo fields. As applied to this case, the pre-development condition of the Complex as polo fields was a reasonable assumption for calculating soil storage, rather than the farm fields that existed in January 1978, and is consistent with the existing land uses identified in the 2005-2007 basin studies and 2007 Acme Permit. Given the use of the Complex property as polo fields, with the attendant filling, grading, rolling, mowing, horse traffic, parking, and other activities that occurred on the property over the years, the conclusion that the soils on the polo fields were compacted, and the application of the 25- percent compaction rate, was a reasonable assumption for calculating soil storage. Applying the Applicants’ assumptions regarding existing land uses for the Complex property, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that the proposed surface water management system will provide a total of 25.04-acre feet of combined soil and surface storage compared to pre-development soil and surface storage of 24.84-acre feet. Thus, the proposed Project will result in an increase of soil and surface storage over pre-development conditions, and will not cause or contribute to flooding or other issues related to water quantity.4/ Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the proposed surface-water management system will meet standards regarding water quantity established in rule 40E-4.301(1)(a), (b), and (c), and sections 6.6 and 6.7 of the BOR. Permitting Standards - Water Quality Those provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that pertain to water quality, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards . . . will be violated; Will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. Section 373.4142, entitled “[w]ater quality within stormwater treatment systems,” provides, in pertinent part, that: State surface water quality standards applicable to waters of the state . . . shall not apply within a stormwater management system which is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained for stormwater treatment Such inapplicability of state water quality standards shall be limited to that part of the stormwater management system located upstream of a manmade water control structure permitted, or approved under a noticed exemption, to retain or detain stormwater runoff in order to provide treatment of the stormwater . . . . Moose Lake is a component of a stormwater-management system that is located upstream of a manmade water control structure. The Permit application did not include a water quality monitoring plan, nor did the Permit require the Applicants to report on the water quality of Moose Lake. During October and November, 2012, Petitioners performed water quality sampling in Moose Lake in accordance with procedures that were sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of the results. The sampling showed phosphorus levels in Moose Lake of greater than 50 parts per billion (ppb).5/ That figure, though not a numeric standard applicable to surface waters, was determined to be significant by Petitioners because phosphorus may not exceed 50 ppb at the point at which the C-51 Canal discharges from the Acme Improvement District into the Everglades system. Notwithstanding the levels of phosphorus in Moose Lake, Mr. Swakon admitted that “the calculations that are in the application for water quality treatment are, in fact, met. They’ve satisfied the criteria that are in the book.” In response to the question of whether “[t]he water quality requirements in the Basis of Review . . . the half inch or one inch of runoff, the dry versus wet detention . . . complied with those water quality requirements,” he further testified “[i]t did.” Mr. Swakon expressed his belief that, despite Applicants’ compliance with the standards established for water quality treatment, a stricter standard should apply because the pollutant-loading potential of the Complex, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen from animal waste, is significantly different than a standard project, e.g., a parking lot. No authority for requiring such additional non-rule standards was provided. The evidence demonstrates that the Applicants provided reasonable assurances that all applicable stormwater management system standards that pertain to water treatment and water quality were met. Permitting Standards - Design Features and BMPs Provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that constitute more general concerns regarding the design of the Complex, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed. Petitioners alleged that certain deficiencies in the Complex design and BMPs compromise the ability of the stormwater management system to be operated and function as proposed. Design Features Petitioners expressed concern that the manure bin, though roofed, had walls that did not extend to the roofline, thus allowing rain to enter. Photographs received in evidence suggest that the walls extend to a height of approximately six feet, with an opening of approximately two feet to the roof line. The plan detail sheet shows a roof overhang, though it was not scaled. Regardless, the slab is graded to the center so that it will collect any water that does enter through the openings. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the manure bins are sufficient to prevent uncontrolled releases of animal waste to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Petitioners suggested that the horse-washing facilities, which discharge to a sanitary sewer system rather than to the stormwater management facility, are inadequate for the number of horses expected to use the wash facilities. Petitioners opined that the inadequacy of the wash facilities would lead to washing being done outside of the facilities, and to the resulting waste and wash water entering the stormwater management system. Petitioners provided no basis for the supposition other than speculation. Mr. Stone testified that the horse-washing facilities are adequate to handle the horses boarded at the stables and those horses that would reasonably be expected to use the facility during events. His testimony in that regard was credible and is accepted. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the horse-washing facilities are adequate to prevent the release of wash water to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Petitioners expressed further concerns that horse washing outside of the horse-washing facilities would be facilitated due to the location of hose bibs along the exterior stable walls. However, Mr. Swakon testified that those concerns would be minimized if the hose bibs could be disabled to prevent the attachment of hoses. The December 2012 Updated BMP Plan requires such disabling, and Mr. Stone testified that the threads have been removed. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the presence of hose bibs on the exterior stable walls will not result in conditions that would allow for the release of wash water to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Best Management Practices The Updated BMP Plan for the Complex includes practices that are more advanced than the minimum requirements of the Village of Wellington, and more stringent than BMPs approved for other equestrian facilities in Wellington. Petitioners identified several issues related to the Updated BMP Plan that allegedly compromised the ability of the Complex to meet and maintain standards. Those issues included: the lack of a requirement that the Applicant provide the District with a copy of the contract with a Village of Wellington-approved manure hauler; the failure to require that BMP Officers be independent of the Applicants; the failure to require that the names and telephone numbers of the BMP Officers be listed in the permit; and the failure of the District to require that violations by tenants be reported to the District, rather than being maintained on-site as required. Mr. Stone testified that the BMP conditions included in the Updated BMP Plan were sufficient to assure compliance. His testimony is credited. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the terms and conditions of the Updated BMP Plan are capable of being implemented and enforced. Permitting Standards - Applicant Capabilities Provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that are based on the capabilities of the Applicants to implement the Permit, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will be conducted by an entity with the sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued. As the owners of the Complex property, the Applicants have the legal authority to ensure that their tenants, licensees, invitees, and agents exercise their rights to the property in a manner that does not violate applicable laws, rules, and conditions. Regarding the financial capability of the Applicants to ensure the successful and compliant operation of the Complex, Mr. Stone testified that the entity that owns the Applicants, Wellington Equestrian Partners, has considerable financial resources backing the Complex venture. Furthermore, the Applicants own the property on and adjacent to the Complex which is itself valuable. As to the administrative capabilities of the Applicants to ensure that the activities on the site will comply with relevant standards, Mr. Stone testified that an experienced and financially responsible related entity, Equestrian Sport Productions, by agreement with the Applicants, is charged with organizing and operating events at the Complex, and that the Applicants’ BMP Officers have sufficient authority to monitor activities and ensure compliance with the BMPs by tenants and invitees. Mr. Stone’s testimony that the Applicants have the financial and administrative capability to ensure that events and other operations will be conducted in a manner to ensure that the stormwater management system conditions, including BMPs, will be performed was persuasive and is accepted. The fact that the Applicants are financially and administratively backed by related parent and sibling entities does not diminish the reasonable assurances provided by the Applicants that the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Complex will be undertaken in accordance with the Permit. Petitioners assert that many of the events to be held at the Complex are sanctioned by international equestrian organizations, and that their event rules and requirements -- which include restrictions on the ability to remove competition teams from the grounds -- limit the Applicants’ ability to enforce the BMPs. Thus, the Petitioners suggest that reasonable assurances cannot be provided as a result of the restrictions imposed by those sanctioning bodies. The international event rules applicable to horses and riders are not so limiting as to diminish the reasonable assurances that have been provided by the Applicants. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that construction and operation of the stormwater management system will be conducted by entities with sufficient financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. As a related matter, Petitioners assert the Applicants failed to disclose all of their contiguous land holdings, thus making it impossible for the District to calculate the actual impact of the Complex. Although the application was, for a number of items, an evolving document, the evidence demonstrates that the Applicants advised the District of their complete 59+- acre holdings, and that the Permit was based on a complete disclosure. The circumstances of the disclosure of the Applicant’s property interests in the area adjacent to the Complex was not a violation of applicable standards, and is not a basis for denial of the Complex permit. Permitting Standards - C-51 Basin Rule The final provision of rule 40E-4.301 that is at issue in this proceeding is as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41, F.A.C. Mr. Hall testified the Complex violated permitting standards partly because it failed to comply with the C-51 Basin rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-041, Part III, pertaining to on-site compensation for reductions in soil storage volume. Mr. Waterhouse testified that the C-51 Basin rule does not apply to the lands encompassed by the Acme Improvement District permits, including the Complex property. The C-51 Basin rule was promulgated in 1987, after the issuance of the original Acme Improvement District permit. The District does not apply new regulatory standards to properties that are the subject of a valid permit or its modifications. Therefore, the area encompassed by the 1978 Acme Permit, and activities permitted in that area as a modification to the 1978 Acme Permit, are not subject to the C-51 rule. The Joint Prehearing Stipulation provides that “Chapter 373, Fla. Stat., Chapter 40E-4, Fla. Admin. Code, and the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District (July 4, 2010) are the applicable substantive provisions at issue in this proceeding.” The Stipulation did not identify chapter 40E-41 as being applicable in this proceeding. Given the testimony of Mr. Waterhouse, which correctly applies standards regarding the application of subsequently promulgated rules to existing permits, and the stipulation of the parties, the C-51 Basin rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40-E-041, Part III, does not apply to the permit that is the subject of this proceeding. Therefore, the stormwater management system does not violate rule 40E-4.301(1)(k). Consideration of Violations Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(2), provides, in pertinent part, that: When determining whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met, the District shall take into consideration a permit applicant’s violation of any . . . District rules adopted pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S., relating to any other project or activity and efforts taken by the applicant to resolve these violations. . . . Petitioners have identified several violations of District rules on or adjacent to the Complex property during the course of construction, and violations of District rules associated with the Palm Beach International Equestrian Center (PBIEC), the owner of which shares common managers and officers with the Applicants, for consideration in determining whether reasonable assurances have been provided. Violations on or Adjacent to the Complex On March 22, 2012, the District performed an inspection of the Complex property. The inspection revealed that the Applicants had constructed the linear berm along the eastern side of the Property that was the subject of the January 25, 2012, application for modification of the Permit. The construction was performed before a permit modification was issued, and was therefore unauthorized. A Notice of Violation was issued to Far Niente Stables II, LLC, on March 22, 2012, that instructed Far Niente Stables II, LLC, to cease all work on the Complex. Several draft consent orders were provided to Far Niente Stables II, LLC, each of which instructed Far Niente Stables II, LLC, to cease and desist from further construction. Construction was not stopped until April 18, 2012. The matter was settled through the entry of a Consent Order on May 10, 2012 that called for payment of costs and civil penalties. The berm was authorized as part of the March 26, 2012 Complex permit modification. All compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District During inspections of the Complex by the parties to this proceeding, it was discovered that yard drains had been constructed between the stables and connected to the stormwater management system, and that a bathroom/utility room had been constructed at the north end of the horse-washing facility. The structures were not depicted in any plans submitted to the District, and were not authorized by the Permit. The yard drains had the potential to allow for animal waste to enter Moose Lake. The Applicants, under instruction from the District, have capped the yard drains. No other official compliance action has been taken by the District. A permit condition to ensure that the yard drains remain capped is appropriate and warranted. At some time during or before 2010, a mound of fill material was placed on the derby and grand prix field to the north of the Complex to be used as an event obstacle. Although there was a suggestion that a permit should have been obtained prior to the fill being placed, the District has taken no enforcement action regarding the earthen mound. Petitioners noted that the Complex is being operated, despite the fact that no notice of completion has been provided, and no conversion from the construction phase to the operation phase has been performed as required by General Condition Nos. 6 and 7 of the Complex permit. Such operations constitute a violation of the permit and, as such, a violation of District rules. However, the District has taken no official action to prohibit or restrict the operation of the Complex pending completion and certification of the permitted work and conversion of the permit to its operation phase. The construction of the berm, yard drains, and bathroom/utility room, and the operation of the Complex, causes concern regarding the willingness of the Applicants to work within the regulatory parameters designed to ensure protection of Florida’s resources. However, given the scope of the Complex as a whole, and given that the violations were resolved to the satisfaction of the District, the violations, though considered, do not demonstrate a lack of reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met. Violations related to the PBIEC At some time prior to February 13, 2008, one or more entities affiliated with Mark Bellissimo assumed control and operation of the PBIEC. When the facility was acquired, the show grounds were in poor condition, there were regulatory violations, it had no BMPs of consequence, there were no covered horse-wash racks, and the wash water was not discharged to a sanitary sewer system. After its acquisition by entities associated with Mr. Bellissimo, the PBIEC was substantially redesigned and rebuilt, and BMPs that met or exceeded the requirements of the Village of Wellington were implemented. The PBIEC currently has 12 arenas that include facilities for show jumping events, and nine horse-wash racks. The PBIEC has the capacity to handle approximately 1,700 horses. On March 14, 2008, the District issued a Notice of Violation to Far Niente Stables V, LLC, related to filling and grading of an existing stormwater management system and lake system at the PBIEC; the failure to maintain erosion and turbidity controls to prevent water quality violations in adjacent waters; the failure to maintain manure and equestrian waste BMPs; and the failure to transfer the PBIEC stormwater management permit to the current owner. On October 9, 2008, Far Niente Stables V, LLC, and the District entered into a Consent Order that resolved the violations at the PBIEC, required that improvements be made, required the implementation of advanced BMPs, and required payment of costs and civil penalties. On January 12, 2011, a notice was issued that identified deficiencies in the engineer’s construction completion certification for the stormwater management system improvements, horse-wash facility connections, and other activities on the PBIEC. Although completion of all items required by the Consent Order took longer -- in some instances significantly longer -- than the time frames set forth in the Consent Order,6/ all compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District. On January 7, 2011, the District issued a Notice of Violation and short-form Consent Order to Far Niente Stables, LLC, which set forth violations that related to the failure to obtain an environmental resource permit related to “Tract D and Equestrian Club Drive Realignment.” The short-form Consent Order was signed by Far Niente Stables, LLC, and the compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District. Based on the foregoing, the violations at the PBIEC, though considered, do not demonstrate a lack of reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met for the Complex Permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order: Incorporating the June 29, 2012, Order of Standing and Timeliness; Approving the issuance of Surface Water Management System Permit No. 50-00548-S-203 to Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC.; and Imposing, as an additional condition, a requirement that the unpermitted yard drains constructed between the stables be permanently capped, and the area graded, to prevent the unauthorized introduction of equine waste from the area to the stormwater management system. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Okaloosa County Board of County Commissioners, gave notice of a new storm water discharge to the Department for the proposed replacement of a 42" diameter storm water pipe with one 48" in diameter. Notice was given in letters, telephone calls and personnel meetings between representatives of Okaloosa County and the Department. Upon investigation of the project, the Department determined that the project would not significantly enlarge the storm water discharge system, nor enlarge the watershed which the system now drains. The Department also determined that the addition of an energy dissipater, a structure not now present at the discharge end of the pipe, would improve the performance of the discharge system by limiting the velocity of the storm water discharge to 2.3 feet per second. The Department determined that the new storm water discharge would not have a significant adverse impact on the water quality or designated uses of Gap Creek. On May 6, 1980, the Department issued to Okaloosa County a letter of intent to exempt the project from storm water licensing requirements. The Department considered the following in reaching its conclusion that the replacement of the existing pipe would not significantly affect water quality or designated usage: The use of an energy dissipater structure designed to limit the discharge velocity into Gap Creek to a maximum of 2.3 feet per second. The placing of sod around all storm water inlets associated with the pipe replacement to prevent the continued entry of sand into the system; and The pipe replacement and addition of the energy dissipater will not result in a significant enlargement of the existing storm water discharge system, nor otherwise result in the drainage of a larger area. The replacement of the drainage pipe by the county will not add to the amount of water entering Gap Creek, or significantly affect the quality of water in the Creek. Presently, storm water runoff travels within a county-owned drainage ditch and overflows at the point where the county intends to replace the existing 42" pipe. The present pipe is not capable of handling the amount of runoff in the ditch and this results in water overflowing the drainage ditch at the mouth of the pipe and traveling by natural contour to Gap Creek. The 48" replacement pipe and energy dissipater will allow a greater volume of water to remain in the drainage ditch and divert its flow away from the front and back yards of some Gap Creek residents.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, granting the applicant, Okaloosa County, an exemption from storm water licensing requirements for the installation of a 48" storm water pipe to replace an existing smaller pipe that enters into Gap Creek. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 27th day of February, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Oliver DeWitt and Donald F. Richters, employees of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, were called, testified, and identified Composite Exhibit 1, the staff record of this application. Frank applied for a permit after the fact to construct a bulkhead within the mean annual floodplain of Lake Eustis. The investigation clearly revealed that fill had been placed behind a bulkhead built in Lake Eustis. Referring to the drawing marked "A" attached to the application found in Exhibit 1, the area marked in blue by the witnesses is the area filled and bulkheaded by the applicant. The applicant did not appear or present evidence to support its application.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer having considered the law and the facts would recommend denial of the application. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Counsel for SWFMD Irene T. Frank Route 2, Box 55 Tavares, Florida 32778
The Issue Whether the Department of Environmental Regulation should grant a dredge and fill permit to James N. and Janice E. Nash authorizing removal of eleven cubic yards of soil, installation of five 24-inch culverts in lieu of two 18- inch culverts, and placement of 19 cubic yards of limerock in and around the bed of an unnamed creek near the point it reaches the Alford Arm of Lake Lafayette in Leon County, Florida?
Findings Of Fact More than a thousand acres in eastern Leon County comprise the drainage basin giving rise to the unnamed stream that intermittently wends its way across the Alvarez property, crosses the 30-foot wide "tongue" of the Nashes' lot, and traverses the Saltiels' land on its way to the Alford Arm of Lake Lafayette (unless it reaches Alford Arm earlier because rain or other conditions have raised the lake, moving the water's edge upland.) Although neighbors allow them ingress and egress by another route, when flooding makes the roadway impassable, Mr. and Mrs. Nash have no legal right of access other than by the private road which crosses the intermittent stream. In addition to wetlands on either side, part of the streambed, 15 feet wide where it meets the roadway, was originally filled in 1968, when the private drive was built. The strip of land, 30 feet wide and 700 feet long that underlies most of the private road, joins the part of the parcel where the Nashes' house stands to Deep Wood Trail, the public thoroughfare which the private road enters. Leaving a car on the Deep Wood Trail side of the stream, wading across to the other side, and hiking to the house pose difficulties for Mr. Nash, who has muscular dystrophy. Under some conditions, the roadbed acts as a dam. When the lake is low, water flowing downstream may be impeded. When the lake is high, backwater moving in the other direction may be impeded. Of the two culverts installed when the private road was constructed, each with a diameter of 18 inches, only one permits water to flow through now, and even it is partially clogged. When Lake Lafayette rises above 45.3 feet NGVD, Alford Arm spills over the terrain between it and the Nashes' road, and reverses the flow in the streambed where it intersects the roadway. The "invert of the stream at the subject crossing [is] 44.3 feet [NGVD]." T.402. The roadbed is submerged in the vicinity of the stream when Alford Arm rises above 46.7 feet NGVD. The Nashes propose to excavate the streambed (about two and a half feet deep in the natural channel on either side of the existing fill) where it crosses (diagonally) the Nashes' private road, remove the existing culverts together with the soil in which they are embedded, install five culverts, each 24 inches in diameter, in their stead, install cement bag riprap at the ends of the culverts, remove 11 cubic yards of dirt from a 205' by 10' wide section of existing road surface and replace with 19 cubic yards of lime rock surface, Nashes' Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6, realigning the roadway slightly (to avoid the existing encroachment on the Saltiels' property) and increasing the roadbed's elevation over a 205-foot stretch by no more than four inches. Five trees are to be removed, but other trees are to be protected "by tree protection barricades." Nashes' Exhibit No. 7A. Filter fences upstream and down would contain turbidity during construction. The plan is to lay sod and plant grass seed afterwards in order to prevent erosion. Larger culverts would permit the flow of a greater volume of water at lower velocity, more closely approximating the natural regime and reducing scour or erosion downstream. Even when water levels exceeded the elevation of the existing roadbed, more water than the existing culverts can accommodate could move through the proposed replacement culverts, and at a slower velocity. At water levels above the existing grade and below the proposed, slightly higher grade, however, the four inches or less of limerock added to the roadbed would act as a (presumably somewhat porous) barrier to flows that could now move over the roadway unimpeded. The proposed improvements would have no discernible effect on water levels whenever Alford Arm overtopped the roadbed. Ted L. Biddy, the professional engineer called as a witness by the Nashes, testified that a 25-year return two-hour storm would raise water immediately upstream of the roadway, when runoff concentrated there, to levels above the existing roadway grade, assuming that the drainage basin was saturated at the time of the rainfall and that all ponds within the basin were full, but that the level of Lake Lafayette was at or below 45.3 feet NGVD. T.489. "Ordinary high water for Alford Arm is 45.7 [feet NGVD.]" T.486. On this record, it can only be a matter of speculation how often (if ever) a 25-year return, two-hour storm might be expected to occur after rainfall has saturated the ground and filled all ponds in the drainage basin without raising the lake above 45.3 feet NGVD. The wet conditions Mr. Biddy assumed already to obtain in the drainage basin at the time of the hypothetical storm seem unlikely to coincide with the low lake level assumed to occur simultaneously. Alford Arm's 100-year flood level is 51 feet NGVD, "50.25 for the 25 year flood or rainfall, and elevation 49.9 for the 10 year storm water event." T.425. In any event, flooding of the Saltiels' property attributable to the proposed raising of the roadway would last only a matter of hours every quarter of a century according to Mr. Biddy, and would represent temporary diversion of water that would otherwise have flooded their property downstream of the roadway. Even then, no house or structure on the Saltiels' property would be affected nor any part of their property not within the 100-year flood plain. At all water levels below the existing roadway grade, the overwhelmingly more frequent condition, larger culverts would prevent or diminish flooding that might otherwise reach the Saltiels' property upstream of the roadway. By impeding flows downstream, the roadway affords some solids suspended in the water an opportunity to precipitate, instead of being borne on into Alford Arm. Under certain conditions, the larger culverts proposed by the Nashes would reduce time for particulate matter to settle upstream of the roadway; the greater volume of flow through larger culverts would reduce the time water was impounded upstream. Uncontroverted expert testimony established, however, that any increase in turbidity in water reaching Alford Arm would not violate applicable standards.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DER issue a dredge and fill permit to Mr. and Mrs. Nash for the project described in their application on the conditions stated in the notice of intent to issue. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioners' proposed findings of fact Nos. 2 and 10 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 1, what knowledge petitioners are charged with is a matter of law. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 31 pertain to subordinate matters. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact Nos. 5, 6 and 32 pertain to immaterial matters as does petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 9. Only the dredge and fill permit DER proposes to grant the Nashes is at issue. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 30, the calculations of both Mr. Flatt and Mr. Biddy seem to be flawed. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 33, it is not clear that the proposed project would increase the flooding on the Saltiels' property significantly. Temporally de minimis, the change might amount only to relocating the flooding. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 34, see finding of fact No. 12. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 35, larger culverts will decrease the velocity of the flow through the culverts. Petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 36 is immaterial because it does not relate to any applicable rule or statutory standard. With respect to the individual respondents' and intervenor's (applicants') proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 and 2, the application does not specify dredge and fill. The applicants' proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 32 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 6, backwater flows at levels above 45.3 feet NGVD. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 9, the OHW is 45.7 feet NGVD. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 11, testimony so implied. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 12, Mr. Nash suffers from muscular dystrophy. The applicants' proposed findings of fact Nos. 14 and 15 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 16, the only testimony regarding flooding concerned the critical 25-year return storm. With respect to DER's proposed findings of facts Nos. 1 and 2, the application does not specify dredge and fill. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 3, backflows begin at 45.3 feet NGVD. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 4, not all fill would be removed. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 5, testimony so implied. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 6, no statute or rule specifies a design storm. DER's proposed finding of fact No. 7 is really a conclusion of law. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 8, less settling may result in more suspended solids under some conditions. DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. DER's proposed finding of fact No. 13 is immaterial to the merits. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Barley P.O. Box 10166 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Donna H. Stinson Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P.A. 118 North Gadsden Street Suite 100 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Candi E. Culbreath Patricia Comer 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carlos Alvarez c/o Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Michael Chbat's 2008 application for a Wetland Resource Permit (WRP) to construct a culvert extension across his property in Walton County, Florida, should be approved?
Findings Of Fact La Grange Bayou Estates La Grange Bayou Estates is a residential subdivision in Freeport, Walton County, Florida. The subdivision lies to the north of the shoreline of Choctawhatchee Bay. It can be viewed as divided roughly in half between bayfront lots south of an east-west road that transects the subdivision and lots that are north of the road. The subdivision is platted and the plat is in the public records of Walton County. Filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Walton County, Florida, on September 15, 1982, the plat ("the 1982 Plat") shows 29 residential lots in the subdivision as of that date. See Petitioner's Ex. 6. Lots 1 through 16, according to the 1982 Plat, are the bayfront lots, south of a 40-foot wide road designated as a private road in the plat. That road is now known as Alden Lane. Wetlands over which the Department has jurisdiction ("jurisdictional wetlands") comprise much of the southern portion of bayfront lots and the drainage easement. Among the bayfront lots are both Lot 9 which belongs to Mr. Chbat and Lot 8 which belongs to Mr. Sheehey. A 50-foot easement lies between Lot 9 and Lot 8 and is described more fully below. The presence of jurisdictional wetlands on Mr. Chbat's lot over which he hopes to install the culvert extension requires that he obtain a WRP. To the north of Alden Lane are lots numbered by the 1982 Plat as 17 through 29. The lots are served by Alden Lane and, in what is roughly the northeast quadrant of the subdivision, by two other roads. One of the roads is shown on the 1982 Plat as a "40' PRIVATE ROAD." Id. A 2006 aerial photograph introduced into evidence by Chbat designates the road "unnamed." See Chbat Ex. 5. The other is designated as a "graded county road," on the 1982 Plat. By 2006, it had come to be known as Beatrice Point Road. Id. Beatrice Point Road transects a pond that runs roughly 340 feet (excluding about 30 feet of roadway) in a northeasterly direction from Alden Lane to the southern edge of an area north of the subdivision shown on the 1982 Plat to be un-platted. The pond is most likely the result of a "borrow pit" dug in order to obtain fill for the construction of the roads when the subdivision was initially developed. The southern boundary of the pond lies along approximately 140 feet of Alden Lane's northern edge. The pond is across the street from Lots 9, 10 and 11 of the subdivision. The pond is also not far northeast of the 50-foot easement (the "Drainage Easement") between Lots 9 and 8. The Drainage Easement The Drainage Easement is just to the west of Lot 9. It is noted on the 1982 Plat as a "50' EASEMENT (PRIVATE)." Id. The 50-foot wide Drainage Easement runs the length of the western boundary of Lot 9 and the length of the eastern boundary of Lot 8. The northeast corner of the Drainage Easement is approximately 30 feet from the southwest corner of the pond separated from the pond by the roadway of Alden Lane. The eastern boundary of the Drainage Easement is 226.37 feet in length, or if taken to the middle of Alden Lane, 246.3 feet. The western boundary is 206.13 feet long or if taken to the middle of the road, 226.65 feet. The purpose of the Drainage Easement, as is evident from its denomination in this recommended order, is drainage. As Mr. Street definitively put it at hearing, it is "now and always has been intended to drain stormwater to the [B]ay." Tr. Vol. III at 179. Mr. Street's opinion of the function of the Drainage Easement is supported by drawings submitted by Mr. Chbat as part of the WRP application. The drawings show that the Drainage Easement's function is facilitated by three culverts north of the Easement (referred to during the hearing as "pipes") each of which is intended to direct stormwater at its point of discharge toward the Drainage Easement. See Chbat Ex. 1. One of the culverts ("the Drainage Ditch Culvert") serves a drainage ditch that is to the north of the Easement and Alden Lane. According to the drawings, the drainage ditch lies on the other side of the "un-named road" from the pond, that is, to the west of the pond, and is some 40-to-50 feet north of the Drainage Easement. The Drainage Ditch Culvert extends from the ditch to the southern half of Alden Lane from where it appears from the application's drawings that stormwater would be conveyed to the western side of the Drainage Easement along it's border with Lot 8 and on toward the Bay. In fact, it is a functioning culvert that "conveys water from a swale on the side of the road into the [D]rainage [E]asement." Tr. 64. Once in the Drainage Easement, according to the drawings, the water should flow into the Bay out of a "cut," id., that is labeled on the drawings as an "existing trench." See Chbat Ex. 1. The trench, however, has been filled in with sand by tidal activity or sediment deposited by stormwater or both. The trench has not been maintained, and it no longer exists. The other two culverts (the "Pond Culverts") lie east of the Drainage Ditch Culvert. They catch overflow from the pond caused by stormwater and convey it under and through Alden Lane toward the Drainage Easement. The westernmost Pond Culvert (the "Western Pond Culvert") appears to terminate in Alden Lane near its southern edge just north of the Easement. At the time of hearing, however, it was not functioning properly. "[I]t is full of sand and silted up . . .", tr. Vol. I at 58; "[t]he pipe to the west is clogged and it is not functioning." Tr. Vol. I at 64. It is also at an elevation that would keep it from serving drainage purposes in all but the most severe storm events. See Chbat Ex. 9 at 22. The other Pond Culvert, (the "Eastern Pond Culvert") terminates in the northwest corner of Lot 9 at the border between Lot 9 and the Drainage Easement about 10 feet southeast of the terminus of the Western Pond Culvert. The Eastern Pond Culvert is the culvert with which the Amended Permit is concerned, that is, it is the culvert to be extended by the permit. Calling it a "pipe," Mr. Street offered the following about the assistance the Eastern Pond Culvert offers in conveying stormwater into the Drainage Easement and down to the Bay: There is currently a pipe that discharges into that easement. There . . . was an attempt to place the water from the . . . pond into the easement. And the natural flow of water on this entire property from the road to the [B]ay is north to south. At some point, at least 2004, that drainage easement contained a conveyance at its southern end that would safely discharge stormwater to the [B]ay. Tr. Vol. III at 179-80. Petitioner Sheehey and Lot 8 Thomas Sheehey is the owner of Lot 8, where he has a residence in which he makes his home. He has lived in the residence approximately five years. During that time, Mr. Sheehey has fished in the Bay and enjoyed the use of his kayak and his waverunner on the Bay. He also enjoys "sitting down having a cup of coffee and looking at it," tr. vol. III at 151, as well as watching his neighbors fish. The recreational uses to which he puts the Bay is the reason he chose to purchase a bayfront lot in La Grange Bayou Estates. Over the period of time that he has resided on Lot 8, Mr. Sheehey has observed the effects of rain events on his lot and well as lots close to Lot 8. He has also taken pictures of his property and the near-by lots. Among the photographs were four taken after rain events or "after a wet period," tr. vol. III at 88, at some point in the last four years. The four photos were introduced as a composite exhibit, Petitioner's Ex. 2, with each photograph marked as 2A, 2B, 2C or 2D. Mr. Sheehey could not specify when the pictures were taken in the past four years other than that if a picture had a certain dock in it, then it was taken after January of 2009. Petitioner's Ex. 2A was taken from Mr. Sheehey's lot looking toward the Bay. It shows an area of the lot under water separated from the Bay by a ridge. Petitioner's Ex. 2B is a picture taken from Lot 13 looking west across Lots 12, 11, 10, 9 "down through 8." Tr. Vol. III at 86. Much of what is photographed is among trees and vegetation emerging from water standing above the surface of the soil. Petitioner's Ex. 2C is a picture taken from Alden Lane looking south across Mr. Chbat's property. It shows a wide swath of water that extends from the road across most of the property to the Bay. The water is either in a swale or constitutes overflow outside the swale. The most recent of the four is Petitioner's Ex. 2D, which shows the dock referred to by Mr. Sheehey that was built in early 2009. It is a picture taken from Lot number 13 toward the west through Lots 12, 11, 10, 9. Like the others, it shows vegetation standing in water to the north of the Bay. Taken together, the four pictures in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 demonstrate that significant portions of the lots depicted are under water following sufficient amounts of recent rain. The four photographs that comprise Petitioner's Exhibit 2 are not the only photos taken by Mr. Sheehey that were introduced into evidence. Three other photographs of Mr. Sheehey's, Petitioner's Exhibits 7A, 7B and 7C, were admitted following testimony about them from a long-time observer of the flow of water from Alden Lane to the Bay. A Long-time Observer Thomas Eugene Cummins had lived in La Grange Estates "[t]wo months shy of 20 years," tr. vol. III at 7, at the time of his testimony. His house was the fourth to be constructed in the subdivision. Over the two decades of his residence, the pond between Alden Lane and the property north of the subdivision has been in existence. Consistent with the drawings submitted to DEP as part of the application, when asked where the pond overflows today, Mr. Cummins answered "it drains under Alden Lane on to Mr. Chbat's lot." Tr. Vol. III at 8. Asked by Mr. Chesser at hearing, "When the water comes out of the pond, is it possible to know where it spreads?"1/ Mr. Cummins testified: On really heavy rains, I have watched the normal color of the pond change from its dark blackish gray color into the reddish color that the clay has washed down into it, flow under Alden Lane and on to Mr. Chbat's lot, and then proceed west through the wetland on lots eight, seven, six, and my five, and turn reddish color even in my lot. Tr. Vol. III at 9-10. Mr. Cummins knew the source of the "red color" of the stormwater: red clay introduced to La Grange Estates by the County half a decade earlier. Mr. Cummins testified: Beatrice Point Road, which is the road that runs over the pond, about five years ago the county did some repair on the road and actually put red clay in certain spots to even it out. Tr. Vol. III at 9. Prior to the county's work on the road referred-to by Mr. Cummins, there had been no red clay in the neighborhood. Alden Way, for example, has no red clay. It is a road composed of shell. The only red clay in the subdivision is that which is on Beatrice Point Road. The water that runs onto Mr. Cummins' lot following a heavy rain rises to as much as 12 inches.2/ The water rises as high as it does because it is held back by a naturally-occurring land formation between the Bay and Mr. Cummins property. This geo-formation was referred-to at hearing as the ridge line or the ridge. The Ridge The Ridge was described by Mr. Cummins as a vegetated mass of earth that most of the time, even in heavy rains, sits above the water that collects on the bayfront lots of La Grange Estates. The Ridge prevents a substantial amount of stormwater runoff from entering the Bay from the wetlands on the southern portion of the subdivision's bayfront lots. For that reason, the ridge is called "our upland,3/" tr. vol. III at 13, according to Mr. Cummins. Between Lot 9 and Lot 5, the ridge varies in width "anywhere between 10 feet . . . up toward Mr. Chbat's lot, down to [Mr. Cummins'] lot where its around 30 or 40 feet [wide.]" Id. (It may extend, in fact, across all of the bayfront lots.) The ridge meanders not far from the shoreline. Id. In some places it is as narrow as five feet. The height of the ridge varies as well from as low as one foot to as high as two and half feet. Mr. Street also testified about the Ridge, referring to it in his testimony as a "ridge line": Now, there is a ridge line, and there's been a lot of testimony about this ridge line, that it exists across all of the lots. My testimony was, essentially, related to the review that I did, which was primarily associated with lots eight and nine, and the drainage easement between them. And from what I can tell, the elevation of that ridge line is give or take three. Elevation three, not a height of three. An elevation of three. It could be lower, and perhaps, is higher. And its subject to the vagaries of a number of factors, flow of stormwater, wave action, tidal influence, and the like. And these accretions and depositions of sand over time change that ridge line. And sometimes, it opens up. And sometimes it may not have a natural opening, depending on where you are along that entire stretch of beach. * * * [T]o the extent there is an opening in that ridge line, water will flow naturally to the bay. Tr. Vol. III at 180-181. An "east west flow of water," tr. vol. III at 181, along the bayfront lots, that is, a flow of water either in an easterly direction or a westerly one is contrary to the flow from Alden Lane north of the lots to the Bay south of the lots. Whether flowing east or west, the water in the southern portions of the bayfront lots is "controlled by the ridge line." Id. In other words, stormwater that flows from north to south across the bayfront lots, including Mr. Chbat's and the Drainage Easement, is going to collect and begin to flow from east to west or west to east at some point north of the Ridge before it drains into the Bay. The only exception to east-west flow, as made clear by Mr. Street, is when and if there is an opening in the Ridge that allows the water otherwise held back by the Ridge to flow southward into the Bay. The east-west flow of the water along the Ridge was described at hearing as "unnatural." Id. In fact, it is not un-natural. The Ridge is the cause of the east-west flow and, as Mr. Street testified, the Ridge is the result of natural processes such as tidal influence, wave action, accretion and deposition of sand.4/ The Ridge is shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 7A,5/ another photograph taken by Mr. Sheehey. The ridge as shown in the picture is well vegetated and above water to its north and higher than the Bay to its south. It is quite clear that if there is no opening in the ridge to the Bay, stormwater north of the ridge is forced to flow in east-west directions and is prevented from flowing into the Bay. Petitioners' Exhibit 7B is a photograph of the southern terminus of a swale (see paragraphs 40 - 49, below) on Mr. Chbat's property. It shows the swale cut through the Ridge. Water, however, does not appear to be running from the end of the swale into the bay. It appears that the end of the swale is a few feet from the Bay separated by a narrow sandy area on the shore. Nonetheless, the photograph shows that there is potential for stormwater to flow from the swale when the swale has more water in it. Petitioner's Exhibit 7C is a picture of the pond6/ across the street from Mr. Chbat's Lot 9. Mr. Chbat and Lot 9 Michael Chbat is the owner of Lot 9. He purchased the lot "[t]o build a house on it." Tr. Vol. I at 22. Because he has family close by (in Fort Walton Beach), Mr. Chbat expects to use a house built on the lot for weekend visits. His ultimate aspiration is to live in a house on Lot 9 after he retires from his position as a construction engineer with the City of Tallahassee. At hearing, Mr. Chbat described Lot 9 on the day he bought it: "the lot was overgrown. It drained from north to south. It had water standing on it. And it had a pipe [the Eastern Pond Culvert] on the northwest corner discharging." Tr. Vol. I at 23. He also described the state of the lot at the time of hearing. The Eastern Pond Culvert on the northwest corner was still there. The lot had been cleared to some extent to rid it of invasive species. Overgrown vegetation was trimmed or cleared to make room for a driveway permitted by the Department and "a parking pad in the front area of it, as well as an access pad in the uplands." Id. A dock had also been constructed from the property into the Bay. The most significant difference between the lot at the time of purchase and the lot at the time of hearing for purposes of this proceeding is that the lot now has a swale (the Swale) that runs from the point of discharge of the Eastern Pond Culvert "all of the way to the bay area." Id. The Swale The Swale was put in sometime after March 20, 2007, as the result of a Settlement Agreement fully executed on that date "By and Between Michael Chbat and Thomas L. Sheehey." Petitioner's Ex. 10. The Settlement Agreement followed events that commenced in 2004 when Mr. Chbat filed an application (the "2004 Application") with DEP for a WRP primarily to construct a house and a boardwalk leading from the house on Lot 9 to a dock in the Bay. The 2004 Application also proposed the extension of the Eastern Pond Culvert with a "pipe" along the western boundary of Chbat's property in a manner substantially similar to the culvert extension allowed by the Amended Permit that is the subject of this proceeding. On October 28, 2005, DEP proposed that the 2004 Application be granted. The permit (the "Proposed Original Permit") was assigned No. 66-0235320-001-DF. See Petitioner's Ex. 10, at 2. The Proposed Original Permit was challenged by Mr. Sheehey when he "filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing contesting certain action authorized under the [Proposed Original] Permit . . . specifically the relocation of a drainage pipe . . . ." Petitioner's Ex. 10, at 2. After referral of the petition to DOAH, Mr. Chbat and Mr. Sheehey wrote in the Settlement Agreement that they had "determined that it is in their best interests to settle this matter amicably pursuant to the terms hereafter". Id. Among the terms is that Chbat would file an Amended Application. See id. The agreed-to amendment to the 2004 Application was attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit "A," a drawing of a "Drainage Swale Plan," produced by Genesis Group for Mr. Chbat. The drawing depicts a swale that runs from the discharge point of the Eastern Pond Culvert nearly the full length of the western boundary of Lot 9 to the Bay. See Exhibit "A" to Petitioner's Ex. 10. The Swale was designed to take the place of the 2004 Application's proposal for a "pipe"7/ attached to the point of the discharge from the Eastern Pond Culvert. The Settlement Agreement received the support of DEP because the Department believed that a swale would assist in improving the quality of the stormwater discharged to the Bay over the untreated discharge from the end of the "pipe." Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement the 2004 Application was amended. The Department amended the Proposed Original Permit accordingly and final agency action was taken with the issuance of a permit to Mr. Chbat (the "Final Original Permit") found in DEP Permit File No. 66-0235320-001- DF. Installation of the Swale The Swale was installed, but it did not work as intended. The result of the Swale's installation was more water on the lot rather than less. Mr. Chbat described the after-effects of the Swale: "it started bringing more water to the lot . . .". Tr. Vol. I at 31. The increased amount of water is the result of several factors, one of which is tidal influence: the tide from the Bay pushes water into the Swale. "[A]bout halfway on the swale . . . that water from the bay was meeting the water from the pipe . . .". Id. The water from the Bay tide and the stormwater conveyed by the Swale would meet at "about the middle of the span of the swale." Id. The result was "a lot more water," id., on the lot. Mr. Thomason confirmed Mr. Chbat's assessment that the reason the Swale did not function as effectively as necessary is tidal flow onto Lot 9 from the Bay particularly from high winds. But tidal flow onto Lot 9 and the interruption in the discharge of stormwater through the Swale are not the only problems. There is also a maintenance factor that accompanies tidal flow: sand deposition. Mr. Thomason elaborated: "[D]uring storm events or [just normal] wave action in the bay, sand is brought back up on to . . . the sandy area at the end of [Lot 9] next to the [Bay.]"8/ Tr. Vol. I at 62. The influx of sand onto Lot 9 is not just a problem for adequate functioning of the Swale. The Drainage Easement has "the same problem." Id. Both the Swale and the Drainage Easement are plagued by deposition of sand pushed landward by normal tidal influences and storm events. Maintenance of the Swale and the Drainage Easement, therefore, would assist the drainage of stormwater into the Bay. The tidal influence and maintenance issues that Mr. Chbat encountered with the Swale led him to apply for a different and new permit. That application was filed in 2008. The 2008 Application Mr. Chbat filed a "Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida" with DEP on August 1, 2008 (the "2008 Application"). See Chbat Exhibit 1. The work to be approved was similar to the work originally proposed in the 2004 Application in that both applications proposed installation of a "pipe" to be fixed to the discharge point of the Eastern Pond Culvert that would run along the western boundary of Lot 9 toward the Bay. A description of the work is contained in Section 10 of the 2008 Application: "Extension of an existing stormwater pipe within a private lot approximately 150 feet. The slope for the proposed pipe extension will be at minimum so that stormwater will be treated further, and minimizing erosion." Chbat Ex. 1 at 3. After the filing of the 2008 Application, Mr. Chbat learned that Mr. Sheehey objected to the newest Chbat proposal because he believed 150 feet is not lengthy enough to clear the Ridge. See Chbat Exhibit 2. In order to cure the objection, Mr. Chbat proposed a modification to the 2008 Application. He attached a "sealed and signed drawing," id., to a letter dated September 18, 2008, that he submitted to DEP. The drawing shows the extension to be 177 feet, 27 feet more than initially proposed by the 2008 Application. The additional 27 feet was intended to ensure that the discharge would be directly into the Bay in order to "eliminate any possible run-off impact to adjacent properties." Id. The modification was accepted by DEP." See exhibit number 19/ attached to the Amended Permit, Chbat Exhibit 4. There was conflicting evidence in the proceeding on whether the outfall from a culvert extension of 177 feet will be bayward of the Ridge. The issue was put to rest by Mr. Street’s testimony in rebuttal at the hearing. See Tr. Vol. III at 194 and 203-4. His testimony establishes that the point of discharge at the end of the culvert extension will clear the Ridge so that the discharge will be directly into the Bay. The Mound The culvert extension is designed at an elevation and with cover (presumably sod). The extension runs through jurisdictional wetlands and segments them. It does not, however, isolate any portion of the wetlands. The wetlands on Mr. Chbat's property and those to the immediate east and west of it, therefore, will retain their status as jurisdictional wetlands should the extension be installed. With its sod cover, the culvert extension will be a mini-berm (or a "mound" as Mr. Street called it) at an elevation of 17 to 18 inches above grade. Water that pools to its west will no longer be able to flow eastward of the mound (except rarely under the most extreme weather events.) Conversely, water that collects to its east will no longer be able to flow westward of the extension. It would have to be a severe storm event for water to rise above the mound. Mr. Chbat has never seen water rise to 18 inches above grade and Mr. Cummins testified the highest water ever gets on his property is roughly 12 inches. The Department approved the 2008 Application as modified to lengthen the extension to 177 feet and issued the Amended Permit. But an incorrect and critical assumption was made during review of the application that related to the mound. Review of the 2008 Application During his review of the application, Mr. Street, as DEP's stormwater engineer, assumed from the drawings that the Drainage Easement is functional.10/ The assumption was expressed in Mr. Street's testimony in the Department's case-in-chief: Q [D]id you determine whether the pipe, as it would be mounded . . . [the culvert extension covered in sod] . . . would create problems for storm water flow? A I looked at that. There were two conclusions that I drew. One was that the mound would create a higher water elevation on the Chbat property east of the mound, but would not create standing water west of the mound extending into the [Drainage E]asment . . . . Which on the drawings that I reviewed showed an existing trench at the south end of that easement. And it was my opinion that any water that fell west of the mound would exit through the easement. Tr. Vol. II at 92 (emphasis added.) Mr. Street's assumption that water would not pool to the west of the mound in the Drainage Easement and toward Mr. Sheehey's property was contradicted by Mr. Sheehey's stormwater engineer, Mr. Porterfield. THe Porterfield Testimony and Support for It at Hearing The testimony at hearing of Mr. Porterfield, who conducted a site visit, established the opposite of what Mr. Street assumed. The volume of stormwater runoff that pools east of the mound, that is, water on Lot 9, will not be as great as the volume as the water that pools west of the mound. Water that would have flowed onto Lot 9 from the Eastern Pond Culvert will flow directly to the Bay via the culvert extension. The extension will also protect the Drainage Easement and Lot 8 from water that would have flowed from the Eastern Pond Culvert onto that property. But there is a significant difference between stormwater to the west of the extension and to the east. To the extension's west, the Drainage Easement and Lot 8 will have to contend with stormwater from the Drainage Ditch Culvert, the culvert north of Alden Lane that does not convey stormwater from the pond but that like the Pond Culverts has a discharge point directed at the Drainage Easement. How often and to what extent pooling of stormwater will occur west of the mound due to its presence is difficult to determine on the state of this record.11/ No studies or analyses of the likelihood and severity of storm events and the volumes of stormwater runoff that would be produced by them were conducted by any of the stormwater engineers in the case nor were any such analyses done with regard to pooling caused by the presence of the covered culvert extension. The testimony of Mr. Porterfield, however, and other evidence, demonstrates that that additional collection of water west of the mound caused by the mound will occur following heavy rain. Mr. Street was present in the hearing room throughout the entire hearing, including during the presentation of Mr. Sheehey's case. As Mr. Street candidly testified on rebuttal after he had heard all the evidence: I would also maintain that the drainage easement which has signs of a historical usage as a drainage easement with a trench, in fact, that conveys water safely to the bay, that should be re-established and maintained. That’s what it’s there for.” Tr. Vol III at 181 (emphasis added.) Thus, it became clear to Mr. Street after listening to all the evidence in the case that the Drainage Easement has not been properly maintained. The trench that was expected to carry stormwater toward the Bay no longer exists. In short, the testimony of Mr. Street, for all his many strengths as a witness, falls short of supporting the position of the Department and Mr. Chbat. Having never visited the site,12/ he approved the project on the basis of drawings that do not conform to the on-site physical reality. When presented with the evidence at hearing that the Drainage Easement is not functioning, he championed re-establishment and maintenance of the Drainage Easement. Mr. Chbat placed part of the Swale's functionality problem on the tide pushing stormwater northward but his case also recognized the maintenance problem caused by deposition of sand that besets the Swale. Mr. Thomason, moreover, recognized that the Drainage Easement has the same maintenance issue. Mr. Chbat's stormwater engineer testified During storm events or just normal wave action in the bay, sand is brought back up on to. . . the sandy area at the end of [Chbat's] lot next to the water. And so that . . . tends to inhibit the natural flow down the swale . . . we have the same problem on the drainage easement . . . where sand builds up in that discharge. Tr. Vol. I at 62 (emphasis added). From this record, it is clear that neither the Swale nor the Drainage Easement functions properly. Their functional status, moreover, is due in significant part to lack of maintenance. It may be that maintenance ultimately will not solve the problem; maintenance efforts to keep the Swale and Drainage Easement clear of the sand deposited by tidal activity may require too much effort for them to be reasonably required. But that evidence was not produced. Indeed, the record was silent as to any maintenance efforts with regard to the Swale by Mr. Chbat or with regard to the Drainage Easement by the owner of the easement. The record is also silent as to whether DEP voiced any concern about the maintenance issues that beset the Swale. It is clear that concern was not raised by the Department in regard to the Drainage Easement until the rebuttal phase of the hearing, since the assumption was made that the easement was properly maintained. Whatever communication may have occurred with regard to maintenance issues among the parties, the Department issued the Amended Permit.13/ The Permit/Authorization Number for the Amended Permit is 66-235320-002-DF.14/ Issued December 19, 2008, the Amended Permit has an expiration date of December 19, 2013. The expiration date coincides with the construction phase of five years on the face of the Amended Permit. See Chbat Ex. 4. Mr. Sheehey Challenges the Amended Permit On January 6, 2009, Mr. Sheehey, pro se, filed with DEP a petition (the "Petition") seeking a formal administrative hearing with regard to "Amended Wetland Resource Permit 66- 00235320-002-DF." Although the Petition makes reference to the Amended Permit, it seeks in the first instance enforcement of the Settlement Agreement that relates to the Final Original Permit. The Petition states: "Petitioner believes that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction over this matter and should enforce the March 20, 2007 Settlement Agreement which requires that Permittee act in conformance with Exhibit 'A' of the Agreement [the drawing of the Swale]." In the event that DEP declined to enforce the Settlement Agreement, the Petition sets out disputed issues of material fact that relate to issuance of the Amended Permit. The Petition was referred to DOAH on February 19, 2009. One week before the final hearing, the Department filed the motion in limine that is discussed in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. The motion was granted to the extent that it sought to preclude Sheehey from introducing evidence that supported enforcement of the Settlement Agreement since the 2008 Application, which, while bearing similarity to the 2004 Application, is nonetheless an independent application that should be approved or denied on its own merits without regard to the 2004 Application, the Proposed Original Permit, the Settlement Agreement or the Final Original Permit. The case proceeded to hearing on the remaining issues raised by the Petition: 1) whether Sheehey has standing to contest approval of the 2008 Application; 2) whether Chbat gave the notice required by Section 373.413, Florida Statutes, and 3) whether Chbat's application meets the criteria in statutes and rules for issuance of the Amended Permit. Standing The findings of fact relevant to Mr. Sheehey's standing are found in paragraph 9, above. Notice Notice of the 2008 Application was published in The Defuniak Springs Herald-Breeze, a newspaper published in Defuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida. The notice was published on October 23, 2008. The evidence presented by Mr. Sheehey concerning lack of legal notice consisted of testimony by Mr. Sheehey at hearing in response to questions from his counsel. See Tr. Vol. III at 134. The testimony does not establish that Mr. Sheehey was a person who had filed a written request for notification of any pending application affecting his particular area. The testimony of Mr. Sheehey, moreover, establishes that he was given oral notice of the application by Mr. O'Donnell within four days of its filing. WRP Permitting Criteria To obtain a WRP, an applicant must satisfy the criteria in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-312 and Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. These criteria govern a range of topics including water quality. Water Quality15/ Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-312.080 provides that no permit shall be issued unless the Department has been supplied with reasonable assurances that the proposed work will not violate water quality standards. Water that enters the pond spends some amount of time in the pond (residence time) before flowing out. During residence time, solids drop out of the water so that the quality of the stormwater that flows out of the pond is reasonably expected to be better than the quality of the stormwater runoff when it entered the pond. Vegetation surrounding the pond, furthermore, enhances the quality of the water in the pond, whether the water’s source is runoff or rain falling directly into the pond. The water that flows out of the pond north of Alden Lane is “existing discharge.” Tr. Vol. I at 65. It generally made its way to the Bay prior to the Swale. Some of it makes its way to the Bay via the Swale now; some of it outside the Swale as overflow. The culvert extension will convey that discharge to the Bay if the extension is installed. The quality of the water is not significantly less when it discharges to the Bay via the Swale or otherwise from the Chbat property than when it would enter the culvert extension should it be installed. It is true that the Swale would have provided filtration and additional treatment to the discharge from the Eastern Pond Culvert as does the Chbat property in general. But that does not mean that the quality of the culvert’s discharge is a concern. The Swale may have been an option preferable to the extension of the culvert as far as water quality goes but all parties agree that the Swale has failed as a conveyance (albeit Mr. Sheehey maintains that the Swale would work with proper maintenance.) That there is a discharge method that improves the quality of the discharge, such as a swale, does not mean that the discharge to the Bay via the culvert extension is of insufficient quality. None of the parties tested the quality of the discharge from the Eastern Pond Culvert. The Department, nonetheless, offered evidence with regard to its quality. The Department concluded that the quality of the pond and its discharge were not of concern. Had the pond been contaminated to an extent that would have given rise to concerns, moreover, the Swale or the culvert extension as a means of conveying the discharge to the Bay would not have made a “discernible difference.” Tr. Vol. II at 80. The Department provided evidence of assumptions made with regard to the quality of the water that led the Department to conclude that testing of the discharge was unnecessary. Mr. O’Donnell, the Department’s expert in the application of state rules and statutes in wetland resource permitting, detailed the assumptions at hearing: My assumption was that that pond was dug some time in the past as a way to provide fill for roads. That it was never any part of . . . [a] stormwater treatment system. And that it conveyed upstream water through the pond and then on down into Choctawhatchee Bay. It was strictly a [borrow pit and a conveyance pond.] It was never permitted as a treatment system in any way that I was aware of in my diligence [in determining whether the extension should be permitted.] Tr. Vol. II at 79. Once Mr. O’Donnell’s testimony entered the record at the behest of Mr. Chbat, the burden shifted to Mr. Sheehey to prove that the applicant had not provided reasonable assurance of water quality. Mr. Sheehey did not offer evidence of any testing of the discharge. Nor did he offer testimony that rebutted Mr. O’Donnell’s opinion. In fact, the testimony of Mr. Wilkinson (Mr.Sheehey's witness) supported Mr. O'Donnell's opinion with regard to water quality. See Tr. Vol. III at 112. In sum, the Department made assumptions that are found to be reasonable based on Mr. O’Donnell’s expertise and experience. Those assumptions were not shown to be unreasonable by Mr. Sheehey. The Department’s conclusions about water quality flow directly from Mr. O’Donnell’s reasonable assumptions. Reasonable assurances have been provided that the project will not violate water quality standards. Public Interest Test Choctawhatchee Bay is not designated as an “outstanding Florida water.” The test that Mr. Chbat must meet therefore is whether the activity proposed by the permit application is “not contrary to the public interest.” § 373.414, Fla. Stat. In making that determination, the Department is directed by the statute to consider and balance seven criteria. See § 373.414(a) 1-7, Fla. Stat. Of the seven, three are at issue once water quality is determined to be of no concern. Two of the three, “[w]hether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature,” Section 373.414(1)(a)5., Florida Statutes, and “[t]he current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity,” Section 373.414(1)(a)7., Florida Statutes, do not require in-depth consideration. With regard to the nature of the project time-wise, the evidence establishes that the culvert extension is intended to be permanent. With regard to current condition, the area affected by the proposed activity is a residential lot, a substantial portion of which is under water following heavy rain. To facilitate the conveyance of stormwater, the lot is served by the Swale. The Swale is not functioning optimally because of lack of maintenance and because of the Ridge. With regard to relative value from the standpoint of water quality, the function being performed by the lot and the Swale is little, at least as established by this record. While it is certainly true that the lot with or without the Swale will filtrate and otherwise treat stormwater runoff from the pond, the difference in the quality of the stormwater conveyed by the culvert extension from that which would enter the Bay without the extension is not significant. See the discussion above of Mr. O’Donnell’s accepted opinions. Of the seven statutory criteria to be weighed and balanced by the Department, the one that is central to this case is found in subparagraph 1., of subsection (1)(a): “[w]hether the [culvert extension] will adversely affect . . . the property of others.” The “property of others” in this case is the property of Mr. Sheehey. The Project’s Effect on the Property of Mr. Sheehey. For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 63-70, above, Mr. Chbat has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the project will not have a detrimental effect on the property of Mr. Sheehey. The extent of the detrimental effect to Mr. Sheehey's property is difficult to determine from this record but it is highly likely based on all the evidence of record that there will be a detrimental effect: additional flooding in heavy rain events.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection deny17/ the Amended Permit for the failure of Mr. Chbat to provide reasonable assurances that the project will not adversely affect Mr. Sheehey's property. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 14th day of January, 2010.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding concerns whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed bridge project will meet the requirements of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the various provisions contained in Title 17, Florida Administrative Code, so that a dredge and fill permit should be issued. More specifically, the issues concern whether the various water quality standards embodied in Title 17 of the Code and Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, will be complied with and whether the public interest standards in Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, will be met in the sense that the project can be assured not to be contrary to those standards.
Findings Of Fact Taylor County, through its duly-elected representative body, the Taylor County Commission, has filed an application seeking authority, by the grant of a "dredge and fill permit", to place fill material and to perform construction of a bridge across an unnamed canal in Taylor County, Florida, in the vicinity of Keaton Beach. The proposed bridge would connect Balboa Road and Marina Road on Pine Island in the community of Keaton Beach. Pine Island is an elongated strip of land separated from the Taylor County mainland by water and lying generally in a north/south direction. It is an artificial island created by dredge spoil from dredging activities by which certain canals were constructed during the decade of the 1950's. It is bounded on the west by what is known as "Main Canal", on the north by an unnamed canal, and on the east by what is known as "Back Canal". South of Pine Island is an inlet of the Gulf of Mexico. The canals involved in this proceeding, named above, are Class III waters of the State of Florida. Marina Road runs down the center of Pine Island. Lots to the west of Marina Road abut Main Canal and lots to the east of that road abut the Back Canal. Pine Island has been platted into approximately 110 lots. There were 47 homes and two (2) trailers on Pine Island at the time of the hearing. Only 17 full-time residents live there. Keaton Beach Road, also known as County Road 361, runs in a north/south direction generally and relatively parallel to Marina Road on land lying across Main Canal from Pine Island. In the past, Pine Island Drive connected Keaton Beach Road and Marina Road. It traversed Main Canal over what was known as the "humpback bridge", a wooden structure. The bridge ultimately became decayed and hazardous so that it was removed by the County in 1983. East of Pine Island, forming a continuation of Pine Island Drive, is a limerock road. This road presently provides the only vehicular or pedestrian access to Pine Island. It crosses the Back Canal over a culverted-fill area, making a 90 degree turn to the north and runs north along Back Canal. It then turns in an easterly direction until it meets Balboa Road. The property to the east of the center line of Back Canal and to the east of Balboa Road belongs to Dr. William Kohler. Other than the one-half of the culverted-fill area that lies west of the center line of Back Canal, the limerock road is on Dr. Kohler's land. In 1974, Taylor County was concerned about the use of the humpback bridge by school buses. It asked Dr. Kohler to grant it an easement over the limerock road for use by school buses. That limerock road passes over portions of Lots 44 and 45. Although Lots 44 and 45, east of Balboa Road, were not included in the written easement, Dr. Kohler has allowed use of the limerock road that passes over portions of Lots 44 and 45 since that time. Balboa Road presently terminates in a cul-de-sac at the edge of the unnamed canal that bounds the north end of Pine Island. On Pine Island, Marina Road is paved at the present time past the front of and to the northern property boundary of Lot 13, Petitioner Brumbley's residence lot. At that point, Marina Road ends at the south side of an unnamed dirt road. Between the north side of that unnamed dirt road and the unnamed canal lie Lots 2-6. The proposed Balboa bridge will start at the end of Balboa Road, cross the unnamed canal, cross a portion of Lot 2 and 3 on Pine Island, and tie into the existing grade at the "T" intersection where Marina Road deadends into the unnamed dirt road. The unnamed canal runs approximately east and west at the location of the proposed bridge. The bridge would be constructed on top of revetted fill material that will be placed to the north and south of a 15-foot wide span over the middle of the unnamed canal. The bridge construction shall be according to the Florida Department of Transportation specifications for road and bridge construction. The bridge will have a DOT approved guard rail on each side. No water quality violations will result from the proposed project. Turbidity violations may occur on a temporary basis during construction and so turbidity screens and silt barriers will be installed by the applicant to prevent such turbidity from migrating away from the site itself. A condition on the grant of the proposed permit has already been agreed to by the Respondent parties which will require turbidity and erosion-control devices prior to any excavation or placement of fill material. Specific condition eight also requires that these control devices remain in place until the fill has been vegetatively stabilized after construction is over. The proposed project will have a positive impact on public safety and welfare by providing proper and appropriate access to Pine Island by a more stable, safe roadway to which the bridge will be connected. During periods of high water, the present limerock access road floods, limiting emergency access to the Island. On one occasion, an injured person had to be carried down the limerock road to meet an ambulance at another location because the ambulance was unable to traverse the flooded limerock road. It is Dr. Kohler's intention to terminate use of the limerock road by members of the public since it is on his property. When that occurs, there will be no access to Pine Island unless the proposed bridge is built. The present limerock access road can be dangerous and slippery when wet, and persons using the limerock road often travel "dangerously fast", as testified to by Petitioner, Doris D. Brumbley. The 90-degree turn of the limerock road has no guardrails. The proposed project will, to a minimal, temporary degree, adversely impact fish or wildlife and their habitats, marine productivity and the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the area affected by the proposed bridge. The canal system was originally excavated out of the salt marsh. Being man-made structures, their sides have slumped somewhat and have established a small, littoral zone where vegetation grows. Mud flats at the bottom of the canal bank allow the growth of oysters. The fill area associated with the proposed bridge, however, will have a surface area and volume comparable to the culverted fill that will be removed at the point where the road presently crosses Back Canal. When the culverted-fill area or plug across Back Canal is removed, the lost vegetation and oysters will become re- established at that location, offsetting the loss that will occur at the location of the bridge. Various marine species will also become established on and benefit from the shelter of the bridge and its structure, as well. The project will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The banks that will result from the removal of the culverted fill and the sides of the filled areas associated with the bridge will be protected from erosion with vegetation and revetments. The proposed project will enhance the flow of water in Back Canal and will improve navigation and flushing. Water flow through the existing culvert is presently considerably restricted when compared to the water flow beneath the proposed Balboa bridge area. The existing culvert is not at the bottom of the filled area. Therefore, at low water, most of the culvert is exposed, precluding the culvert from functioning at maximum capacity to aid in flushing with the water quality benefits caused by flushing being thus retarded. The lack of water flow has caused a portion of Back Canal, south of the culverted-fill area, to fill up with sediment. At low tide, parts of the Back Canal are without water. The increased flow that will result from removal of the fill plug and culvert where the road presently crosses Back Canal will allow property owners along Back Canal to navigate their boats out into the Gulf of Mexico, thus improving the recreational value of Back Canal and the navigation in the canal system. There are no similar fill projects planned for or expected in the Keaton Beach area. All three Petitioners are concerned that storm water runoff from the proposed bridge will flood their property, however. At the present time, the road in front of the Petitioners' lots is paved, with the pavement ending at the northernmost end of the Brumbley property. Since the Petitioners' lots already receive roadway runoff from the existing paved road, any increase in runoff to their lots would have to come from storm water flowing along the length of the road from the proposed project. The road which is to cross the proposed bridge will be composed of a 20-foot wide strip of asphalt, with 5-foot shoulders on each side. The slope from the crown of the road to the outer edge of the pavement will be one-quarter inch per one foot. The shoulders will have a slope of one-half inch per foot. Thus, rain water will flow off the sides of the road and down the shoulders, rather than down the length of the road towards the Petitioners' lots. Moreover, no additional water should be directed to the Petitioners' lots since the proposed road extension between the end of the bridge and the Petitioners' lots would be flattened. Water flowing off the bridge due to gravity will be shed toward the revetment which extends down to the canal, rather than towards the Petitioners' property. Storm water impacts will be addressed again by the Suwannee River Water Management District. A storm water permit application has been submitted to the Suwannee River Water Management District and is required before the proposed project construction can start. In that storm water permit application, the applicant acknowledged its obligation and responsibility to obtain all required permitting before construction starts. The draft permit reinforces this at specific condition six: "This permit does not constitute any approval of the storm water management system which must be obtained separately from the appropriate agency." All of the Petitioners are concerned about the increase in vehicular traffic which would pass in front of their lots and the Brumbley's particularly are concerned that light from headlights of increased traffic will be cast upon and into their house at night. It is clear that traffic passing the Petitioners' lots will increase due to the proposed project. It is equally clear from the angle of the bridge shown on Joint Exhibit 2 and the elevations of the bridge, shown on Joint Exhibit 3, that light from the headlights of vehicles approaching Pine Island after dark will illuminate, at least momentarily, portions of the Brumbley home.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application of the Taylor County Commission for the dredge and fill permit at issue, as described in the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, be granted on the terms and conditions set forth in the Department's draft permit, in evidence as Joint Exhibit 7. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent DER's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-24. Accepted. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact: None filed. Respondent Taylor County Commission's Proposed Findings of Fact: The County adopted the proposed findings of fact filed by the Department. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulatin Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 William & Maria Greene P.O. Box 38 Madison, FL 32340 Doris S. Brumbley P.O. Box 742 Monticello, FL 32344 William H. Congdon, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Conrad C. Bishop, Jr., Esq. P.O. Box 167 Perry, FL 32347
The Issue Whether or not Petitioners' application for an on-site sewage disposal system (OSDS) permit should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Paula and David Caywood, are the owners of Lot 54, Timber Pines Subdivision, Unit 1, in Madison County, Florida. The subject lot is situated within the ten year flood plain of the Suwannee River Basin. On August 13, 1990, Petitioners filed an application with Respondent to install an OSDS to service a two-bedroom home which they desired to place on the subject lot. As an attachment to their OSDS application, Petitioners introduced a copy of a survey of their lot which was prepared by Walton F. Poppell, a Florida registered land surveyor who holds registration number 2940. The ground elevation for the ten year flood plain for the subject area where Petitioners propose to install their OSDS is 68.0 ft. A review of the land survey presented by Petitioners indicate that the proposed OSDS would be at a ground elevation of 63.8 ft. and when completed would be placed at a ground level of 65.64 ft. or 2.36 ft. below the elevation of the ten year flood plain. Although the Petitioners lot is not subject to frequent flooding, since the surface grade is beneath the ten year flood elevation, the bottom of the drain field trenches absorption bed to be installed would also be beneath the ten year flood elevation. Petitioners have not applied for a variance to install their OSDS within the ten year flood plain of the Suwannee River Basin.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioners application to install an OSDS to service a two-bedroom home on Lot 54, Timber Pines Subdivision, Unit 1, in Madison County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 28th day of February, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: David and Paula Caywood 9320 Horizon Drive Springhill, Florida 34608 John L. Pearce, Esquire HRS District II Legal Office 2639 N. Monroe Street, Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
