The Issue The issue for consideration in this case concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit authorizing the installation of an OSDS on property which they own near the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida, in accordance with the permitting requirements of Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are the owners of certain real property located in Dixie County, Florida, in the proximity of the Suwannee River. The property is described as Lot 38, Highpoint Suwannee Riverfront Estates. The lot in question is 82 feet by 141 feet in size and was purchased in April, 1988 for approximately $5000.00. The lot, and the subdivision it is in, was platted in 1983. On February 21, 1990, the Petitioners made application for an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit, seeking to install such a system on this lot in order to be able to construct a vacation cottage on the lot The proposed cottage would contain one bedroom and would have a heated and cooled area of approximately 500 square feet. Upon reviewing the application, the, Respondent informed the Petitioners that they would need to have a surveyor establish the elevation of their lot, and particularly the site of the proposed OSDS installation, as well as to establish, through contact with the Suwannee River Water Management District, the ten-year flood elevation for the property. Accordingly, the Petitioners obtained a survey by `Mr. Herbert Raker, a registered land surveyor of Cross City, Florida. That survey shows a benchmark elevation of 13.09 feet above mean sea level ("MSL") That benchmark elevation is six inches above the actual grade surface of the lot so that the elevation at the proposed OSDS installation site is 12.59 feet above MSL. The ten-year flood elevation for the property is 15 feet above MSL, as established by data from the Suwannee River Water Management District contained in a report which is in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. That flood elevation data was submitted to the Respondent by the Petitioners with the application for the OSDS permit. The property in question is located within the ten- year flood plain of the Suwannee River, and it is also located within the regulatory floodway of the River. On April 24, 1990, after advising the Petitioners of the denial of the OSDS permit application, the Respondent, by letter, advised the Petitioners that they should pursue a formal administrative proceeding rather than file an informal variance application before the Respondent's own Variance Board. The Respondent took the position that a variance could not be granted from the requirements of Rule 10D- 6.47(6), Florida Administrative Code, because the subject property was located within the ten-year flood plain of the Suwannee River and because of the Respondent's interpretation of the affect of the Governor's Executive Order 90- 14, which adopted by reference the Suwannee River Task Force recommendation that all such systems be prohibited within the ten-year flood plain. The Respondent thus declined to exercise its discretion, accorded it in the statute and rule cited hereinbelow, to entertain and consider a variance application. Finally, it is established that the lot in question is not subject to frequent flooding; but because 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. In other respects, the property is a amenable to the installation of an effective OSDS because the wet season water table is 48 inches beneath the surface grade and would be more than 24 inches beneath the proposed drain field. The normal water table is approximately 60 inches beneath the surface grade. Appropriate limited soils are present beneath the first six inches of soil below the surface and consist of fine sand, light brown and brown fine sand, down to 60 inches, which is appropriate for effective subterranean treatment and disposal of sewage effluent. The Petitioners established a definite hardship on their part by the fact that they have paid a substantial sum for the lot and are now unable to develop it unless they receive entitlement to an OSDS or some reasonable alternative. In that regard, no sufficient proof of truly effective, reasonable alternatives was established by the Petitioners. However, they did establish that an anaerobic septic tank and drain field disposal system might be an effective alternative treatment and disposal method for the property in question. An aerobic system involves the injection of air into the attendant septic tank to support aerobic bacteria which break down and treat sewage at a faster, more effective rate than does the normal anaerobic bacteria-based system. The resulting effluent is substantially lower in BOD and suspended solids than is the effluent from the normal subterranean and anaerobic septic tank and drain field disposal system. The problem with such an aerobic system is that it involves mechanical equipment, especially, an external electric motor and pump to force air into the system. This is disadvantageous in that, if the equipment suffers a breakdown, then treatment and appropriate disposal of the effluent stops. The untreated sewage can then rise to the surface of the property or otherwise pollute ground or surface waters and potentially cause a public health hazard. Thus, such systems would require inspection periodically to insure that they are in adequate working order because if the mechanical system malfunctions, the system will continue to put effluent through its drain field without adequate treatment. In this circumstance, the occupants of the dwelling served by the system might not notice for long periods of time that it is inoperative because the system will continue to dispose of effluent, but just of an untreated nature. Accordingly, when the motor and air pump system becomes inoperative, there is less incentive for the owner to repair it. Thus, it is likely that if such a system were installed, some means would have to be found to insure that the owner keeps the system in good repair and working order. The means by which such an arrangement for insuring that such an aerobic system works properly at all times was not established in this record, however. Consequently, the Petitioners failed to establish that reasonable alternatives to the proposed conventional system exist and what they might consist of.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the carndor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioners' application for an OSDS permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 21st day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3112 The Petitioners filed no proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-9. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Betsy K. Lanier, pro se P.O. Box 238 Old Town, FL 32680 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
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
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether Petitioner is entitled to a variance so as to allow the installation of an on-site sewage disposal system (OSDS) on the Petitioner's property located in Dixie County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of Lot 24 of Hatchbend Upon Suwannee subdivision, a platted subdivision in Dixie County, Florida. The Petitioner purchased the lot for residential purposes and seeks to install an on-site sewage disposal system (septic tank) (OSDS) on that lot for purposes of serving a single family residence. The Petitioner originally filed a permit application seeking a permit authorizing installation and operation of an OSDS for that property. That permit application was filed on December 12, 1989. It was denied and the Petitioner sought a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings to contest that denial, which became Case No. 90-6134. That case was ultimately settled between the Petitioner and the Department and no permit application was granted. Instead, the Petitioner filed the subject application for a variance from the requirements of then Section 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. The variance application was filed on June 21, 1991, with regard to Lot 24 only. By letter of October 9, 1991, the Department denied the application for variance and the Petitioner timely requested a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to contest that denial. Lot 24 of Hatchbend Upon Suwannee subdivision, owned by the Petitioner is located on the Suwannee River. The Petitioner submitted a report of the Suwannee River Water Management District, in evidence, which indicates that the subject property lies within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River. The two year flood elevation at that location is 19 feet above mean-sea level (MSL). The ten year floor elevation at the installation site is 29 feet above MSL. The elevation of the proposed septic tank system installation site is 17.5 feet above MSL. Department personnel performed an inspection and an evaluation of the site. It was thus found and established by testimony and evidence, presented through witness Fross, that the water table level during the wet season is at or above the surface of the property at the installation site and the dry season water table level is approximately 6 inches below the surface grade of the property at the installation site. This is the reason, together with the fact that the property lies within the regulatory floodway and beneath the ten year flood evaluation of the Suwannee River for the river mile at the site, that the inspector recommended denial of a permit for an OSDS for the property. The Petitioner maintained that the information originally submitted and obtained from the Suwannee River Water Management District had incorrectly indicated the river mile at the site. The ten year and two year flood elevations are calculated according to the river mile at a given site, river miles being measurements of the linear distance of the Suwannee River and the Suwannee River floor plain. However, if the lower ten year flood elevation prevailing at the river mile the Petitioner maintained equated with the project site was applicable, by the Petitioner's own admission, the site in question (and indeed any location on any of the nearby lots he owns) would be below that resulting ten year floor elevation level. Ms. Emily Wilson testified on behalf of the Respondent. It was established that the education, experience and certification of Ms. Wilson as a registered sanitarian, together with her graduate and post-graduate degrees in the area of environmental science, accord her expertise in the areas of environmental protection, sewage disposal and sanitation and she was accepted as an expert in those fields. It was thus established that installation and operation of a septic system on the Petitioner's property would pose a threat to the ground and surface water in the vicinity of the site due to the high water table levels and the fact that the property, including the proposed installation site, is subject to frequent flooding. The exposure of the septic tank drainfield to ground or flood waters would allow the release of pathogens into those waters, which could be carried along into the ground or surface waters when the flood receded. These pathogens would endanger the health of the Petitioner, surrounding land owners and other persons through contamination of the drinking water supply. The pathogens could also endanger persons using the river for recreational purposes. The Department produced photographs which were introduced into evidence establishing that the road leading to the property was underwater due to flooding in the spring of 1991. That road runs along the back of the Petitioner's property and is further removed from the river than the actual installation site where the Petitioner proposes to install a septic system. After the flood receded, the water marks on the trees in the area of the proposed installation site on the Petitioner's property indicate that the area had been submerged under approximately three feet of water. The property was established to be subject to frequent flooding. Ms. Wilson is aware that other systems can potentially be used to adequately contain and treat sewage generated by a residence such as that the Petitioner envisions, including a closed system characterized by no sewage discharge. The applicant however has not submitted a proposal for such a system for consideration by the Department. She is unaware of any other system of sewage disposal that has previously been approved for use in low areas similar to that prevailing at the Petitioner's property and installation site. The Petitioner purchased the property under a contract for deed. The contract for deed specifically states that the property was subject to frequent flooding at the time the Petitioner purchased the property and the Petitioner was aware of that. The Petitioner purchased the property in spite of that representation in the contract for deed. The construction and use of a mounded septic tank and drainfield system designed to elevate the septic tank and drainfield a sufficient required distance above the groundwater table and the ten year flood elevation level could potentially be installed, but the system would require a very large, high mound. It was not shown that the dimensions of the lot would permit the installation of the required mound base pad, and mound itself, of a sufficient size to properly elevate the proposed system so that a permit could be approved. The mounded system required under proper design parameters provided for in the Department's rules would cause the mounded system to approach or even exceed the entire width of Lot 24. A mounded system located in the regulatory floodway, as Petitioner's property is located, would require issuance of a separate permit from the Suwannee River Water Management District. There was no showing that the Petitioner sought such a permit nor any showing of the likelihood that such a permit could be granted at the time of the hearing. Additionally, the Department's rules require that a qualified engineer issue a certification with respect to the use of a mounded disposal system within the regulatory floodway which certifies that the insertion of fill material for constructing such a system in the floodway will not cause a rise in the level of the "base flood", also known as a "zero rise certificate." No such certification has been obtained. In order to establish compliance with the requirement for granting of a variance set forth in the legal authority cited below, the applicant must establish, among other things, that there is no reasonable alternative to the installation of the system proposed. The applicant has presented no evidence to show that there are no reasonable alternatives to the system proposed. Rather, the testimony and evidence indicates that indeed there may be alternative disposal systems and methods available, although the proof was not developed in this proceeding to establish what those might be. The consideration of another location for the system on a different lot or installation site presently owned by the Petitioner or of an alternative type of treatment and disposal system might be feasible but would require a new site evaluation and submission of appropriate information which could establish that a specific alternative system and/or location is feasible, in terms of the requirements in the statute and rules that no deleterious impacts to the ground or surface waters in the vicinity of the site would occur. Such an effort would have to be the subject of a separate permit application and is not at issue in this variance proceeding.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting, for the reasons found and concluded above, which denial should be without prejudice to a later permit application which might offer full consideration of potential, reasonable alternative sewage treatment and disposal systems and methods in the manner envisioned in Rule 10D-6.0471, Florida Administrative Code and other pertinent rules. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, 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 24th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: All proposed finding of fact are accepted. The Petitioner presented no Proposed Findings of Fact but rather a posthearing pleading constituting, in effect, a closing legal argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Prior 3106 Waverly Avenue Tampa, Florida 33269 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Petitioners purchased property in New Smyrna Beach, Florida to build a home. The property, which was platted in the 1940's measures 50 feet by 200 feet. The east side of the property (50') is located on Engram Road. The northern 200 feet and western 50 feet of the property is waterfront, situated on a tidal inlet from the Indian River. The Indian River contains the last remaining Class II waters in Volusia County. Class II waters in Florida are waters in which the state allows shellfish harvesting for public consumption. As the last remaining Class II waters in the county, the area requires special protection from all possible sources of pollution and negative environmental impact, including sewage outflow. According to the Petitioner, the seller of the property indicated to Petitioners that the property had been approved for constructing a home. The seller substantiated his assertion with a letter from the Volusia County Planning and Zoning Department stating that a county variance had been granted to construct a single family dwelling on this property, subject to certain conditions. The county approval letter specified the required use of an aerobic wastewater treatment system. The Petitioners were unaware of the state regulations and standards for onsite sewage disposal systems. The Petitioners hired a builder who applied to the HRS Volusia County Public Health Department for a septic tank permit. The permit was denied because the proposed septic tank system violated 50 foot set back required of sewage treatment systems from Class II waters. The proposed drainfield was located within 28 feet of the mean high water line, and because of the configuration of the lot and its depth of only 50 feet the proposed site cannot meet the state standard. The Petitioners' builder subsequently applied to the state Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for a variance from the code standards in order to obtain the septic tank construction permit. The state denied the variance stating that the "request was not considered to be a minor deviation from the minimum requirements". The Petitioners received no notification of the time and place of the Variance Review Board's meeting because the variance application was submitted by their builder. Petitioners had no opportunity to personally address the Variance Board when their application was being considered. A sewer line is located within 1000 feet of the property and a sewage grinding and pumping system could be installed to pump sewage from the site to the sewer line. Such a system, costs approximately the same amount as an onsite system. A grinding and pumping system is an economically reasonable alternative to permit development of the lot.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witness, the arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the request for a variance be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 2nd day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 132 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Jerome and Bernice Massel 6426 Engram Road New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire HRS-District 4 P.O. Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083
The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to a variance for installation of an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") for property located near the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida, in accordance with the provisions of Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of certain real property located in Dixie County, Florida, more particularly described as Lot 4, Wonderland Subdivision. The property is approximately 60 by 150 feet in size and was purchased in 1982 for a price of $9,000.00. It is presently appraised at $11,000.00; however, if an OSDS could be permitted and installed, the property would appraise for approximately $22,000.00. The lot was platted in 1957. On October 19, 1989, the Petitioner made an application for a variance from the OSDS permit requirements for the property. The application form indicated, and the Petitioner intends, that this would be a new system for a single-family residence. The residence would contain two bedrooms and would produce approximately 250 gallons per day of sewage flow. The Petitioner desires to construct a residence on the property to have a pleasant place to live and is suffering a hardship because of the investment which he has made in the property, which is of no use to him if he cannot obtain the subject permit or variance and install the OSDS so that he can construct his residence. Alternatively, he is unable to sell the property readily without the ability to obtain an OSDS permit or variance for the property. At the behest of the Respondent in the permit application or variance application process, the Petitioner obtained a survey of the property by a registered land surveyor (see Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 in evidence). That survey resulted in a benchmark elevation being established of 12 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The site of the proposed OSDS installation is 11.71 feet above MSL. The ten-year flood plain elevation for this property is 16 feet above MSL, as verified by records of the Suwannee River Water Management District in evidence without objection. The property is also located within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River. Although the Petitioner acknowledged in a general way that he would be amenable to consideration of various alternative types of systems involving piping of sewage effluent to an appropriate upland disposal and treatment area, the use of chemical toilets or other appropriate non-discharge types of treatment and disposal systems, no concrete evidence was adduced from the Petitioner to establish that such are or are not reasonable alternatives to the conventional subterranean septic tank and drainfield type of disposal system with which the variance application is concerned. Consequently, the Petitioner's proof does not establish that no reasonable alternatives exist in order to secure the grant of a variance nor did the Petitioner's proof establish that the type of system proposed would not pollute the ground or surface waters or pose a threat to public health in terms of the standard subterranean OSDS or any alternative systems which the Petitioner might theoretically employ, including the types mentioned above. The Petitioner's proof simply did not establish that installation of a standard subterranean OSDS would only pose a minor deviation from the permitting statute and rules cited herein nor did the Petitioner establish that no reasonable alternatives exist to the establishment of a standard OSDS, as that relates to the substantiality of the hardship which the Petitioner is experiencing in not getting the OSDS originally requested permitted; and the Petitioner did not establish that any system proposed would not pose a threat to public health or pollute ground or surface waters. In summary, the Petitioner did not establish that a sufficient hardship is experienced, because reasonable alternatives have not adequately been explored and considered by the Petitioner nor made a part of the subject of Petitioner's proof nor has the Petitioner established that a grant of a variance would involve only a minor deviation from the permitting statute and rules standards because it has not been proven that the public health nor the ground or surface waters would not be adversely affected. Finally, because the property is located in the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River, under Rule 10D- 6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, before a mounded or filled OSDS could be permitted and installed, which is one alternative under consideration, a registered professional engineer must certify that the mounding of the system and installation of fill in the regulatory floodway area would not cause elevation of the "base flood" of the Suwannee River. No such engineering evidence or testimony has been adduced iii this proceeding; therefore, such an alternative system cannot herein be recommended for approval.
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 a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the statutory and regulatory requirements for an OSDS permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 1990, 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 11th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3111 Respondent' Proposed Findings of Fact: All of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Marilou Clark Suwannee Plantation Realty Rt. 3, Box 73 Old Town, FL 32680 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
Findings Of Fact On a site that would abut St. Johns County on two sides, the City proposes to develop as a landfill about 400 of the 880 acres it owns in the southeast corner of Duval County. The proposed southeast landfill is designed to serve the approximately 300,000 people living in Duval County south and east of the St. Johns River, by receiving 1,700 tons of solid waste a day for ten years, 400 or 500 tons a day more than people in that part of the city now generate. Sandhill and Swamp Scattered over the portion of the property proposed for solid waste deposition are cypress marshes and blackgum sloughs isolated from a swamp and from each other by upland pine plantation and sandhills. Except for some 40 acres cut off from the remainder by a fill road, the hardwood swamp covering approximately 265 acres of the City's property is part of the pristine "Durbin Swamp system which is a major wildlife area, including habitat for threatened and endangered species." T. 2820. Durbin Swamp south of J. Turner Butler Boulevard and east of U.S. Highway 1 is "the most valuable wildlife habitat in the area, maybe in the southeastern United States." T.2921, 3058. The City's consultants characterized 64 of the 123 gopher tortoise burrows they found on some 105 acres in the southern part of the site as active. Sherman's fox squirrels feed and nest on the property. Although "very little of the sand hill habitat [remains] in its natural condition on the property," (T. 185) turkey oak, long leaf pine and sand pine communities do survive. Isolated wetlands scattered through the eastern portion of the site have also been timbered, and ditches intersect many of them. St. Regis Paper Company, who owned the land until earlier this decade, "dug a series of canals . . . to drain . . . part of the land ["it was called upper wetlands"] . . . so that the ground could be high enough to raise good grade pine trees." T. 1417. "The isolated wetlands . . . provide habitat diversity for wildlife, a seasonal source of drinking water, possible refuge during forest fires, as well as breeding and forage locations," (T. 1255) according to the City's draft application. "Wildlife noted on the site includes Florida black bear, white-tailed deer, raccoon, armadillo, cottonmouth, river otter, common night-hawk, alligator, yellow bellied sapsucker, turkey, frog, quail, dove and red- shouldered hawk," (T. 1255) also according to the City's draft application. Bobcats are common. According to the St. Johns River Water Management District's chief environmental specialist, "animals that you would find utilizing the uplands . . . would be a range of small rodents [including] mice, rabbits . . . insects, [mostly tree] frogs, toads, snakes [including] black snakes, rat snakes . . . [o]possums . . . pastorine birds, cardinals, bluejays, blackbirds . . . [and] probably some hogs." T.537-8. Wood storks wade and feed in the isolated wetlands on site. Wood stork rookeries have been found five miles to the southeast and seven miles north of the City's property. Bald eagles nest nearby but off site. Eagles used the now abandoned eagle nest on Eagle Nest Island "three-quarters of a mile from this proposed landfill site," (T. 1419) at least as recently as 1983. One or more eagles still perch on a dead cypress limb on the property (T. 2422), if not elsewhere on site. Ospreys, southeastern American kestrels (T.2918) and six or seven species of woodpeckers, including the rare hairy woodpecker (T2914) have also been seen on site. "There are dirt logging roads just as there are in any property in Florida, but not a great number." T. 2751. "Almost all of the pine flatwoods habitat on the site has been replaced with planted pine." T. 184. The property is comparable to the Wacasassa tract in Gilchrist County which is on the Conservation and Recreational Lands list and under consideration for state acquisition because of its "comparatively unaltered nature." T. 2721. In the past, conservation efforts have brought animals to the property for refuge. T. 1420. Listed Species The Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (Game and Fish) lists the gopher tortoise and the Shermans's fox squirrel, said by one witness to be "imminently threatened," (T. 2899) as species of special concern. T. 2875. A species of special concern "is beginning to show a decline and needs to be . . . considered as a target of conservation and if present conditions continue it's going to be listed as threatened." T.2874. Game and Fish lists the Florida black bear, the southeastern American kestrel and the bald eagle as threatened, the same category in which the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Fish and Wildlife) lists the American alligator. A threatened species is one destined to become endangered "if present trends continue." T.2874. Both Game and Fish and Fish and Wildlife list the wood stork as endangered, and Fish and wildlife lists the bald eagle as endangered. "An endangered animal is one that under present conditions is in danger of becoming extinct in the near future." T.2874. Listed in the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species are the bobcat and the river otter. By definition, rare animals are not often seen in the wild. The parties stipulated that the staff of CZR, Inc., a consultant engaged by the City, spent an aggregate of 1400 man-hours on the landfill site, of which 429 man-hours were spent on site for the purpose of performing a wildlife survey. T. 2803. Despite their effort and putative expertise, the City's consultants did not see even a single listed animal. This failure contrasts with sightings by hunters and other experts who spent less time on site, and may be attributable to the time of year (two weeks in the fall) the survey was performed (T. 2425-27, 2893, 2899) or to the way in which it was done, (T. 2429, 3067, 3068) which a wildlife ecologist testified rendered it of "trivial value." T. 3079. The study was expedited in anticipation of a hearing date. T. 2426-27. In any case, the survey does not give reasonable assurance that species whose range includes the City's property are not present in suitable habitat on site. T. 2896-97, 3079-80. This is, indeed, the conclusion the City's own experts reached as regards the gopher tortoise itself, because of the clear sign these creatures' burrows give of their use of the property. Similarly, with respect to the Sherman's fox squirrel, although only a single individual was spotted, distinctive nests and piles of pine bracts on site established their presence. Bear tracks corroborate infrequent sightings on the property, as well as south and east of the site. On a large tract of land to the north, bears are fed daily; three or four feed each day. T. 2421. Alligator sign bore witness to the alligator's use of the property, although the only sighting clearly proven at hearing occurred just across the boundary line. Of course, wildlife does not respect legal boundaries. There is no reason not to believe that the red-cockaded woodpeckers, with six active nests within three miles or the Bachman's sparrows heard singing nearby do not frequent the City's property, which offers suitable habitat for both. It is even possible that the Florida panther, common in the area as recently as 30 years ago, may have roamed the site in more recent years in pursuit of deer or feral hogs. Two witnesses swore they had seen Florida panthers within two miles of the site, one only a few months before the hearing, (T. 1362, 1371, 1419), and a third testified he thought a "cat" he had seen two and a half or three years before the hearing just north of the site was a Florida panther. T.2429-32. The Florida Everglades mink, a threatened species according to Game and Fish, has been spotted at least twice in a cypress bog across the street from the City's property, and probably occurs on the property, as well. Not spotted either on the City's property or on adjacent land, the Florida mouse, the eastern indigo snake and the gopher frog are known to make their homes in gopher tortoise burrows. Of these listed commensal species, the indigo snake is particularly likely to inhabit the site. "The blue indigo snake was turned loose on that property in . . . '81 or '82, since it was an endangered species." T. 1420. The site also affords suitable habitat for the long tailed weasel, under review for listing. Game and Fish has listed the Florida mouse and the gopher as species of special concern. Bachman's sparrow is under review for listing. Fish and wildlife views both the red cockaded woodpecker and the Florida panther as endangered, while Game and Fish views the latter as endangered but the former as threatened only. Aquatic or Wetland Dependent An "aquatic and wetland dependent" species is a species that "requires wetlands or aquatic systems to satisfy some critical biological need in its natural life cycle," (T. 524) apart from simply drinking water. "[W]ithout wetlands or aquatic systems, these species would probably be extirpated from the state." Id. The Sherman's fox squirrel, the gopher tortoise, the Florida mouse, the Florida long-tailed weasel, the southeastern kestrel, and Bachman's sparrow are not aquatic or wetland dependent. Because they use watery environments for feeding, reproduction and other purposes, the alligator, the wood stork (the only stork in North America) and the gopher frog are aquatic and wetland dependent. Because "the whole black bear population in our state seems to shift . . . primarily in the fall and winter months, to the wetlands and . . . eat . . . fruit produced in wetland trees," (T. 527) the black bear is deemed wetland dependent. The indigo snake is also so classified because it "seemed to be heavily dependent upon eating frogs." (T. 526). Even though not wetland dependent "historically and naturally," (T. 527) the "less than probably 100 Florida panthers left in the state" are now so viewed because "they have more or less been restricted to the major swamp systems," id., without which they probably would not survive. The contiguous wetlands on site comprise the headwaters of Durbin Creek, which empties into Julington Creek shortly before Julington Creek reaches the St. Johns River. Large scale residential development of lands lying within the watershed of Durbin and Julington Creeks has been proposed. Durbin Creek and the swamp that gives rise to it serve as a "juvenile fish nursery" (T. 2468) for white shrimp, blue crabs, croaker, anchovies, bream, bass, shellfish, bluegill, and sheepshead. Lower dissolved oxygen levels or other stressors in Durbin Creek would decrease populations in fisheries already at carrying capacity, and already threatened by the prospect of overdevelopment. Dredging and Filling The City intends to build a road running east and west between the landfill site and U.S. Highway 1 following, for the most part, an existing dirt logging road, and crossing Old Kings Road, built in 1765 to connect the capital of colonial Georgia with St. Augustine. Turbidity screens and staked hay bales would be used during road construction to protect adjacent waters. After construction, seeding and mulching would stabilize the sloping shoulders of the fill road. In connection with construction of the access road, plans call for filling wetlands contiguous to Durbin Swamp, 2.8 acres within DER's jurisdiction and 3.5 acres within St. Johns River Water Management District's jurisdiction. Fetterbush, gallberry, scrub palmetto, cinnamon fern, bamboo vine and sphagnum moss grow in these contiguous wetlands, under a canopy of slash pine, loblolly bay, cypress and swamp tupelo. The proposed Class III disposal area would lie two hundred feet north of the south property boundary and 600 feet west of the east boundary. Over significant portions of this 88-acre site, fill dirt is to be used to raise the grade, because the land is so low. Enough fill is to be placed in the marshes and sloughs to avoid depositing solid waste in the water. Trucks would haul fill dirt to the eastern part of the site ("the area starting at the northeast corner of the Class III landfill and extending about 300 feet to the west, starting from a point about midway along the eastern margin of the landfill, and extending about 450 or 60 feet to the west, and along the southern portion of the Class III landfill, about . . . 600 feet" T. 1562) and elsewhere on site, smothering isolated wetlands, where more or less healthy vegetation, generally of the kind found in the contiguous wetlands, now grows. The 132-acre Class I disposal area, which would abut the Class III area on the north, would also cover isolated wetlands now on the site. Together with excavation of associated stormwater retention basins, the disposal areas would disturb a total of 46.3 acres of isolated wetlands within the St. Johns River Water Management District's jurisdiction. The St. Johns River Water Management District originally asserted jurisdiction over 48.5 acres of isolated wetlands, City's Exhibit No. 80, but the objectors offered no evidence that staff's subsequent decision that vegetation on one 2.3-acre parcel did not qualify was erroneous. This total does not include isolated wetlands less than half an acre in extent or isolated wetlands lying both within and without the disposal areas which will cease to function as such when truncated by dredging or filling. In this latter category are some ten acres that will not themselves be dredged or filled. T. 2777-8. St. Johns River Water Management District identified 5.3 acres of high quality isolated wetlands with connections off-site that are to be impacted, City's Exhibit No 80, along with another 11.2 acres of "low quality" isolated wetlands. Id. No stormwater retention basin would intrude into DER's jurisdictional wetlands, but approximately nine tenths of an acre falling within the St. Johns River Water Management District's contiguous wetlands boundary would be devoted to stormwater retention basins. Replacement Wetlands To mitigate the planned filling of contiguous wetlands for construction of the access road, the City proposes "to excavate 3.5 acres of nonjurisdictional pine plantation and create a contiguous swamp wetland." City's Exhibit No. 56. Mature dahoon holly, loblolly bay, cypress and gum trees "will be transplanted from on-site [isolated] wetlands proposed for construction impact." Id. A tree spade is to be used to transplant trees with trunks as much as 12 inches in diameter at "breast height" and up to 50 feet tall, along with existing soils, microbial communities and adjacent understory vegetation. The "physical structure of the trees themselves . . . provide a good deal of the habitat." T. 436. Removing mature trees from isolated wetlands and replanting them in created wetlands would, to some extent, mitigate the loss of perches for bald eagles and other birds. Mature trees in the created wetland would be replanted at a density "approximately half that of existing on-site wetlands to be impacted." Id. Only 80 percent of the replantings are to be replaced, if they die; and then only if it is clear within three years that replacement is needed. A six-inch layer of organic soil, to be spread after the trees have been transplanted, would "provide for growth of herbaceous vegetation." Id. The City would monitor the created wetland (part of mitigation area "A") for three years and transplant additional trees, if needed to assure survival of not less than 80 percent of the number of trees originally planted. Of these 3.5 acres, the City has identified 2.8 as specifically intended to mitigate the filling of wetlands within DER's jurisdiction. With respect at least to this portion, the created wetland "will function probably much the same as the 2.8 acres" (T. 2765) to be filled in constructing the access road and "would compensate for the" (T.2765) attendant loss of vegetation. In transplanting mature hardwoods, "[i]t's sort of a physical impossibility to get all the root material . . . [and y]ou also get some loss of branches, limbs and stems just from the physical movement of the tree." T. 2482-83. One reason a wetland "system stays wet . . . is a thick canopy." T.2486. With more sunlight streaming through a sparser canopy, the "vegetation is not going to be the same." T. 2487. "[B]ecause you don't expect the wetlands to function as well as the original wetlands you're replacing, there is a general rule of thumb that . . . you create twice as much wetlands as the wetlands you've destroyed." T. 2488. "A three-to-one ratio would not be unusual for a good mature forested hardwood system." T.467. St. Johns River Water Management District's Applicant's Handbook calls for a ratio between 2:1 and 5:1, but states: "The ratios may also be adjusted when wetlands creation is combined with wetland mitigation proposals such as an open buffer area adjacent to the wetlands, conservation easement, wetland enhancement proposals or alternative mitigation proposals." T. 504. The ratio proposed here is less than one to one. In all, mitigation area A would comprise 11.0 acres of what is now pine plantation. Aside from a .55 acre pond in the middle, mitigation area A would consist of wetlands contiguous to existing wetlands on which three different, if related, vegetative communities are to be planted. In addition, the City proposes to create three different isolated wetland areas, one of which (mitigation area D) it characterizes as "high quality." Six acres of what is now pine plantation would be excavated on the north edge of the property. Using the same, experimental techniques proposed for mitigation area A, cypress trees would be placed on 3.4 acres, and 2.6 acres would be devoted to a combination of loblolly, cypress and dahoon holly. Another 9.8 acres of isolated wetlands would be created within borrow pits, 6.8 acres in borrow area No. 1 (mitigation area B) which would include .55 acres of open water, and 3.0 acres in borrow area No. 2 (mitigation area E.) Just north and east of the truck scales, mitigation area B would receive 200 adult trees per acre planted to the extent they are available on site, or 400 trees per acre planted with nursery stock. The same density is planned for mitigation area E, to be located across the road from stormwater retention basin 4. The City also proposes to remove a segment of a logging road built on fill that now cuts off 40 acres from the remainder of Durbin Creek Swamp. Removal of the fill and revegetation would not only increase the extent of the swamp by 0.3 acres, it would restore historic sheet flow in that part of the swamp. Finally, the City proposes to spread muck, if available, over the shallow, southern part of stormwater retention basin 2 and plant 12 acres of grass ("[w]etland herbaceous species" City's Exhibit No. 80) which, however, the City reserves the right to dredge up "from time to time". Id. p.13. Other Effects, Other Mitigation Building and operating the landfill on the site proposed would displace upland wildlife and fragment largely undisturbed and undeveloped wildlife habitat. Fences along the northern, eastern and southern site boundaries would present a physical barrier. Human activity, particularly daytime traffic on the access road, would also create a "bio-geographical barrier." Developing a landfill at the edge of the swamp amounts to "leapfrogging," instead of expanding existing pockets of industrial or other development. A witness characterized the area to the south of the site as "rural developed"; some 164 people live within a mile of the center of the site. T. 78. But private ranch lands to the north, like undeveloped land to the east, afford good wildlife habitat. Habitat fragmentation divides and isolates animal populations. "Fragmented populations are more susceptible to disease, inbreeding and with time, poaching." T. 2890. The landfill would displace gopher tortoises, their commensals, if any, and other wildlife using sandhill or pine plantation habitat, as well as wildife, including wood storks and other migratory birds, making use of the isolated wetlands that are to be filled over. With the filling of isolated wetlands, migratory birds would lose holly berries and other forage. Filling or excavating acreage at the periphery of the swamp would also destroy habitat and displace wildlife. Wildlife now on site reaching suitable habitat elsewhere will have to compete for limited space against animals that have already established territories. The result should be a net decline in populations. T.2898. Increasingly sequestered, the Durbin Swamp system is already under pressure from urbanization to the north. For animals that remained in the vicinity, development of the landfill would occasion other difficulties. But evidence that landfill noises and odors "would have no discernible impacts to the value of wetlands as habitats for aquatic and wetland dependent species" (T. 528) went unrebutted. A buffer of at least 50 feet would separate contiguous wetlands from stormwater basins and other construction, but this is considerably less than the 528 feet Dr. Harris testified was necessary to avoid "greatly erod[ing] the native faunal diversity of the Durbin Swamp wildlife." T.3073-74. Placement of the landfill on this site would increase the numbers of a half dozen "middle-sized mammal omnivores" (T. 3078) so that gopher tortoises, turkey, quail, "anything that nests on the ground will be subject to the plundering by the enhanced population of raccoons, opossums, gray foxes, red foxes . . . and such." T. 3079. Increased numbers of armadillos would also pose a heightened threat to animals that nest on the ground. Landfill operations can be expected to attract seagulls and birds of other species, including nest predators and the brown-headed cowbird, which takes over other birds' nests to lay its own eggs (T. 3071-2) and would pose a particular threat to Swainson's warbler. It is not clear that any of the mitigation areas the City proposes is intended to replace wood stork feeding habitat that would be lost to dredging and filling. Wood storks feed on dense fish populations in shallow water, when receding water levels make the fish easier to catch. Isolated wetlands on site that have served this function would be lost (T. 2419), although not all of the isolated wetlands to be lost have enough water to support the kind of fish on which wood storks prey. The deep, steep-sided ponds planned for the mitigation areas do not replicate the necessary conditions. Whether birds may safely feed in or drink from untreated stormwater run-off in shallow portions of the retention basins is doubtful. When it rains, particularly the initial flush of run-off would deliver pollutants, including oil, greases and gasoline left by garbage trucks, to the retention basins. T. 1820-1. Removing the fill road and restoring normal flows to the 40-acre patch of the swamp on the other side, as the City proposes, would not add to feeding areas available to wood storks, except for the 0.3-acre roadway itself. The project would disrupt "very superior black bear habitat." T. 3059. Tending to avoid human activity, bears would likely range further east, foregoing foodgathering on site. On the other hand, food or other refuse brought to the landfill might lure bears to their deaths, intentional or accidental. "[C]ollisions with human vehicles," (T. 3062) is the chief cause of black bear mortality in Florida. Bears have been killed in this fashion within a mile of the site, (T. 351 1411-4, 2438) although not during daylight hours when the landfill would be in operation and garbage trucks would travel the access road. Creation of wetlands will not mitigate destruction of upland habitat. On the contrary, additional upland would be taken to create the wetland mitigation areas planned. But the City proposes to give a conservation easement on 129 acres of upland, adjacent to the swamp, that is to remain undeveloped. The upland easement would preclude a host of uses inimical to wildlife, and would mitigate to some extent the loss of wetland habitat for animals which use both uplands and wetlands, like the black bear, even though cut over slash pine plantation is among the very least important or productive wildlife habitats in Florida. The easement would not include sandhill habitat. The City has also undertaken to give a conservation easement covering some 260 acres of wetlands contiguous with Durbin Creek Swamp. This would not, of course, increase the extent of existing wetlands, but it would add a measure of protection for those that survived the project. Perhaps most importantly the wetland conservation easement would preclude expansion of the landfill further into the wetlands, as long as it remained in force. Existing regulatory restrictions on the use of wetlands prevent many uses, even without an easement. Apparently no regulation precludes harvesting bottomland hardwoods, however, so long as no excavation is involved, and vegetation, once severed, is not redeposited on site. But converting deforested areas to pinelands, without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers would probably not be authorized, under 33 U.S.C. s.1344 (f)(2). See Avoyelles Sportmen's League, Inc. v. Marsh, 715 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1983). The City proposes to relocate gopher tortoises and any indigo snakes, gopher frogs or Florida mice that can be found to an unspecified new home off- site. Survival rates for gopher tortoises after similar relocations in the past have ranged between 30 and 100 per cent. By the year 2,000, the St. Johns County gopher tortoise population is predicted to fall by 90 percent, and Duval County is predicted to be devoid of gopher tortoises, even without relocation efforts of the kind proposed. Some or all of the gopher tortoises slated for removal may be descended from those who were brought to the site from Lake City. Perhaps even some who started out in Lake City would themselves make this second exodus to a new promised land. Stormwater Management The site proposed for the southeast landfill does not lie within a basin for which the St. Johns River Water Management District has adopted volumetric requirements. A "set of double [triple (T.1740)] box culverts five feet by eight feet . . . and . . . four other," (T. 425-6), "equalizer culverts," large enough for bears to move through (T. 415) would convey preexisting surface flows. A cross drain in the vicinity of the service plaza would serve the same function. Flood elevations would not increase more than a foot immediately upstream or more than 0.1 feet 500 feet upstream. The access road would not impound surface waters. Exfiltration trenches paralleling the access road "designed based on South Florida's criteria" (T. 1737) would filter contaminants from water running off the road. Within 72 hours of a 24-hour, 25-year return storm, the exfiltration system would be able to treat twice the volume of stormwater that recurrence of such a storm would generate. T. 1743. The scale plaza area where garbage trucks moving east on the access road would be weighed before being directed further down the road to a disposal area, is to be built on an upland portion of the property, and with it a wet detention pond to which surface water from the plaza and associated roadway would drain. Swales and berms would divert surface flow from undeveloped parts of the property that might otherwise reach the detention pond. The interceptor ditch and associated works would reduce by 2.5 hours the time of concentration for runoff from a 202-acre watershed, but cause no other changes in watershed characteristics. A weir would make it possible to regulate overflows and allow detention of run off long enough for biological assimilation of most pollutants. For the 25 year return, 24-hour storm, the pre-development peak rate of discharge (6.3 cubic feet per second) is less than the post-development peak rate without detention (18.4 cubic feet per second) but more than the post- development peak rate of discharge with detention: 3.9 cubic feet per second. An orifice below the weir, with a diameter of 1.5 inches, is designed to discharge less than half the treatment volume (22,088 cubic feet or 2.5 inches times the impervious portion of the area drained) in 64.21 hours. The design meets DER and St. Johns River Water Management District criteria. Portions of stormwater retention basins 1 and 2, situated north of the disposal areas, would lie within the 100-year flood plain. These two retention basins are designed to receive stormwater running off the Class I site or diverted around the site, as is stormwater retention basin 3, while stormwater retention basin 4 is intended to collect stormwater flowing off or around the Class III disposal area. Stormwater retention basins 3 and 4, like the southern area of stormwater retention basin 2, are not to be excavated to a depth of more than five feet below grade, to prevent groundwater from seeping into stormwater retention basins, dewatering the wetlands where it would otherwise emerge. With terraces at 20-foot intervals, to a height of 60 feet above grade for the Class I site and 40 feet above grade for the Class III site, both landfills would resemble Mayan temples, at build out. Ditches around the perimeter of each terrace are designed to convey stormwater to slope drains which would bear water to the level below, eventually to the perimeter ditch on grade, from which it would flow, through box culverts under roads built around the landfill, into the retention ponds. To the extent necessary to prevent groundwater infiltration, the ditches are to be lined. Stormwater retention basin 2 has two discharge structures, while each other basin has a single discharge structure leading to a ditch that would convey stormwater to Durbin Swamp. Perforated pipes, swathed in filter cloth, would be buried under highly permeable sand, along the sides of the retention ponds. Installed above seasonal low groundwater elevations, in order to avoid draining groundwater from the area around the ponds, during dry seasons, (T. 1781) they would have to go below seasonal high groundwater elevations, in order to be low enough to serve as drains for the retention ponds. Ambient groundwater would seep into the pipes, whenever groundwater levels outside the ponds rose above the pipes' elevation. But the pipes would still be able to drain the retention ponds, because of the relatively greater (vis-a-vis soils on site) hydraulic conductivity of the highly permeable sand to be trucked in for use as a filter medium. In time, these side drains or underdrains would clog and require expensive maintenance. But, assuming proper maintenance of the retention pond drains and of the drains that make up the roadway exfiltration system, the landfill and associated development would not flood or dewater wetlands that are not themselves to be dredged or filled. Except what is lost to evaporation, water entering the retention ponds would reach the wetlands, whether through the underdrains, over the weirs and through the conveyance ditches, or by movement underground after seeping through the bottom of the basin. The post-development peak rate of discharge from the area draining into the stormwater retention basins should not exceed pre-development rates for a 24-hour 100 year return storm or any lesser event. Because of roads and other impervious surfaces, a greater volume of surface water should reach the wetlands, causing stages about two inches higher than under pre-development conditions in "a typical summer thunderstorm." T.1782-3. The increase in surface flow corresponds to a decrease in water percolating down into the groundwater, and may result in additional loss to evaporation of water that would otherwise reach wetlands. But any such effect will be slight; surface and groundwater levels and surface water flows will not be adversely affected. T. 1783. Nor will existing surface water storage capabilities be adversely affected, despite the placement of portions of retention basins 1 and 2 within the 100-year flood plain. This encroachment at the very edge of the flood plain would rarely have any effect on surface water flows. Almost all development is to occur outside the ten-year flood plain. The stormwater basins could hold an inch of runoff without discharging water over the weirs. The underdrains, which would, when originally installed, have a hydraulic conductivity of about 130 feet per day, could remove an inch of run-off within approximately 40 hours. On the conservative assumptions that half of a two-foot vadose zone would already be saturated at the time a 24-hour, 25-year return storm dropped an additional 8.9 inches of rain on site, and that soils on site have a porosity of .5, the retention ponds could contain the resultant run-off for treatment, before discharging it first through weirs then through the underdrains. Three surface water monitoring stations are planned. One upstream would make it possible to assess background conditions. Another at the point of discharge from stormwater retention pond 2 would reveal whether the retention ponds and their sidedrains were functioning as intended. A third monitoring station in the southwest corner of the site should give similar information as to the roadside exfiltration system. Hydrogeology Except in the southeastern corner of the City's property, where the ground slopes down to the east, the land the City owns, like the adjacent land to the south owned by the McCormicks, slopes down in a more or less northwesterly direction, falling from 55 feet NGVD on the southern boundary to 15 feet NGVD at the northwest boundary, which intersects an elbow of the swamp. Although groundwater flows east of north under the southeast corner of the property, the flow under the property is generally northwesterly, following the topography. Class II groundwater in the surficial aquifer underlies the property at depths ranging "from almost to land surface to five or 10 feet below." (T. 1517). City's Exhibit No. 161. Groundwater flowing northwesterly crops out in isolated wetlands, evaporates, transpires or discharges into the swamp. To assure that the bottom of each exceeds seasonal high groundwater levels, measured in February of 1987, by the number of inches a 24-hour 25-year return storm would add, fill would be placed under both disposal areas, as needed. Because the Class I solid waste disposal site is to be lined, recharge by rainfall would be precluded there. With a liner intercepting percolating rainwater, groundwater would not attain predevelopment levels. The depression thus induced under the Class I site would more than offset the tendency groundwater under the Class III site would otherwise have to mound up into the bottom layers of solid waste deposited there. Recharge from rainfall (become leachate) would continue at the unlined Class III site; the height of accumulated waste would slow or stop evapotranspiration offsetting percolation there. But groundwater would flow down steeper gradients to lower levels underneath the Class I site (which lies between the Class III site and the wetlands where groundwater discharges) rather than rising into waste disposed of on the Class III site. The horizontal component of flow would continue to exceed the vertical component by several orders of magnitude. Beneath the surficial aquifer, which extends to depths of 50 to 100 feet below ground and consists of sand interspersed with a "matrix of soil, organic materials, clays and silts . . . little layers of clay and hardpan" (T. 1517) lies a continuous, confining layer of gray, sandy material with gravel and shell fragments, 12 to 40 feet thick, blanketing the undulating surface of the Hawthorne formation underneath. "[S]ome 40 percent of the material comprising the Hawthorne formation in this area is clay and the remainder is a mix of sands, silt stone, shell beds and phosphatic sands." (T. 1526) This assures that rainfall or other fluids percolating into the surficial aquifer on site will move horizontally downgradiant, reentering the atmosphere or discharging to the surface, rather than penetrating the thinner aquitard above the Hawthorne formation and sinking another 250 feet or more through the Hawthorne formation itself into the Ocala group and Floridan aquifer below. No subterranean feature in the vicinity permits water in the surficial aquifer to reach the Floridan. No peat, muck or other unstable soils underlie the site. Under 3,000 pounds per square inch, the maximum load anticipated, the ground is not expected to settle more than one inch. The addition of fill dirt does not alter this estimate significantly. Disposal Design The Class III disposal area would not have a liner, a leachate collection system or gas controls. After travelling through soils under the site, leachate from the Class III site would enter the groundwater. The City proposes to train and direct staff, to the end that only yard trash and construction and demolition debris end up in the Class III disposal area, where waste would be deposited directly on fill dirt or naturally occurring soils. No solid waste is to be disposed of within 200 feet of wetlands contiguous to Durbin Swamp lying within DER's jurisdiction. A composite liner of the kind in place at Alachua County's southeast landfill would form the corrugated bottom of the Class I landfill: a 60 mil high density polyethelene layer overlying two six-inch lifts of calcium montmorillonite, a clayey sand that is to be placed on compacted subgrade configured in "a herringbone design with peaks and valleys." T.765 Separating trenches in the valleys, sloping ground would rise, then fall at least two feet for every hundred horizontal feet. Steps would be taken to remove rocks, twigs, roots and the like, before compacting subsoils on site. A machine called a sheepsfoot is to be deployed, once half the montmorillonite has been put down, to pulverize clods and mix the material, in an attempt to assure uniformity within each lift of clayey sand. Other machines would compact each lift to a specified Proctor density. These efforts would not succeed in eliminating all clods or other imperfections, and the sheepsfoot would mix subgrade with the bottom layer of montmorillonite, introducing new impurities. Soils on site have hydraulic conductivity ranging from 1 x 10-3 to 1 x 10-4 centimeters per second. Clayey sand is also subject to desiccation cracking; as it dries out, large cracks appear. On top of this kneaded, compacted and finished 12-inch layer of clayey sand, once it had been inspected to assure the absence of roots, rocks, sticks, glass or other sharp objects, a specialty contractor would unroll strips of unreinforced high density polyethylene. After arranging the panels to minimize seams in the leachate collection trenches, technicians would weld the polyethylene strips to one another. An independent, third-party quality assurance contractor would inspect and test the seams before the synthetic liner was finally positioned, and as flush a fit as possible was achieved. Both the high density polyethylene and the quality assurance program are to meet the requirements of NSF Standard 54 and EPA Publication SW-870, March, 1983. Some wrinkling and occasional flaws in the plastic liner are inevitable. Wrinkling causes ponding, not only of rainwater during construction, but also of leachate, once the landfill is in operation. Tire tracks or other indentations in the montmorillonite layer can also cause ponding. In time, under the growing weight of solid waste, and with heat that biodegradation of the waste would generate, some of the wrinkles might subside, but the liner might also sink into additional depressions. Careful construction could keep ponding to a depth of little more than an inch. T. 2971, 2979. Extrusion welds (when done properly) render the seams stronger than the panels they join. But even if "you are really, really good" (T. 2957) and even when you're careful you get an occasional problem, one or two per acre, no matter how careful you are. And if you're not as careful, you get more, typically something on the order of five holes per acre. T. 2967 Carelessness on one project resulted in as many as 60 flaws per acre. Nondestructive testing methods do not detect all defective welds. T. 2966. Defects may develop after the plastic liner has been inspected. Stress on high density polyethylene associated with "conform[ing] itself to whatever is underneath it" (T. 2962) concentrates in scratches, gouges and crimps to cause "as much as 30 percent" (T. 2964) of the holes in the material. "[T]here is no shortage of scratches on a construction site." T. 2962. Leachate Collection Another high density polyethylene geotextile, chosen for its transmissivity (the geonet), is to be placed on top of the high density polyethylene liner (the geomembrane), where it would act as a synthetic drainage medium. In order to prevent overlying sand's clogging the geonet, compromising its ability to conduct leachate down into the trenches, a third, highly permeable geotextile, "a non-woven needle punched type" (T. 637) (the geofilter) would go directly on top of the geonet. The twelve-inch sand drainage layer blanketing the geofilter would have hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-3 centimeters per second, if sufficient quantities of suitable sand could be obtained. (T. 764) Another 12 inches of native soil is to cover the sand drainage layer. While the geofilter and the soil layers above it would parallel the landfill liner on the slopes between trenches, they would form arches over the trenches themselves. Continuing to follow the contours of the montmorillonite, the geomembrane and the geonet would line the trench bottoms. Below these arches, inert drain field rock would fill the lined trenches, supporting one perforated PVC pipe eight inches in diameter in each trench. The Class I landfill is to be built in fourteen 250-foot wide cells, with each cell having two leachate collection pipes on 125-foot centers. Manholes at either end of each leachate collection pipe would allow access, in case unclogging the pipe proved necessary. Longitudinally, the trenches would slope to the north, falling two to 20 feet for every 1,000 horizontal feet. Leachate reaching the trenches would flow along the trench bottoms (or through the pipes) to the manholes on the northern boundary. Also to be made of leachate-impervious PVC, leachate drain pipes, which would not be perforated, would connect all manholes on the northern perimeter. Varying in diameter from eight to twenty inches, depending on the number of manholes they were designed to empty, they would converge at a leachate pumping station north of the perimeter road. T. 590-1. A rupture in one of the single-walled leachate drain pipes could spill massive quantities of leachate on naturally occurring soils. Leachate which reaches the station is to be pumped into a 12,000 gallon storage tank nearby. To be mounted on a concrete slab surrounded by a curb high enough to contain all 12,000 gallons, if the tank failed, the tank would be constructed of high density polyethylene. The plan is to pump leachate from the tank through a four-inch discharge pipe into tanker trucks which would take the leachate to the Buckman wastewater treatment plan for disposal there. During "the maximum leachate production period, when you have 10 cells open," (T.687) an average of 35,000 gallons of leachate a day would require removal for disposal in this fashion. Additional tanks could be built. As a precaution, isolation valves would permit cutting off all flow of leachate to the pump station. In addition, isolation valves would allow cutting off the flow from any of seven pairs of cells (or slowing the flow from all, T. 705) in the event of an abnormal circumstance where leachate production in the facility exceeds the hydraulic capacity of [the] leachate removal system, the pumping station and storage tank and the tanker truck system. T. 591. Isolation berms separate each pair of cells susceptible to being put to use as temporary storage for leachate. The leachate drain pipes themselves afford more than 23,000 gallons of emergency storage. T.703. Ventilation As they decompose, materials to be deposited in the Class I landfill produce methane gas, carbon dioxide, and other, malodorous gases. Collection pipes with eight-inch diameters, running horizontally on 150-foot centers in the second and fifth lifts would allow gas to escape at either end, on the north and south sides of the landfill. This would prevent methane's building up and exploding or catching fire. By assuring their gradual release, it should also minimize the impact of foul smelling gases, which, in any event, are generally undetectable at a distance of more than 1,000 feet. But specific condition eight of the proposed landfill permit requires that the passive system be converted to an active system, if necessary, using vacuum suction and flaring. GIGO Although there "is not much industry in the southeast portion of Duval County," (T. 953) sewage sludges and other industrial wastes "except any hazardous waste as defined in the Federal Register" (T. 947) would be accepted for disposal at the Class I facility, if properly manifested. The proposed southeast landfill would receive waste that would otherwise have gone to the unlined east landfill. Household waste contains toxic materials. Tests of leachate generated in other lined landfills from which hazardous wastes are excluded have demonstrated the presence of some 30 metals and 56 organic compounds. City's Exhibit No. 89. Rainfall percolating through (and moisture already present in) waste deposited at the proposed Class I facility can be expected to leach the same array of substances from materials deposited there. Judging from experience elsewhere, leachate from the Class I facility would contain 13 or 14 (if 4-methyl phenol is included) substances in concentrations in excess of governmental standards or health-based criteria identified by a toxicologist engaged by the City. City's Exhibit No. 90. Among these would be methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene and benzene, (T. 1478) as to which "the current regulatory policy is that it is possible for as little as one molecule . . . to act as . . . a carcinogenic initiator . . . [so] that there is no real threshold." T. 1447. Maximum concentrations would exceed those Florida prescribes as primary drinking water standards for titanium threefold, for benzene fivefold, for chromium more than fivefold, for sodium approximately 16-fold, for manganese 68- fold, for iron 280-fold, and for methyl ethyl ketone almost 130-fold. City's Exhibit No. 90. Methylene chloride would occur in the leachate in concentrations 39 times greater than the "USEPA proposed Preliminary Protective Concentration Limits." Id. Only yard trash "soils/land clearing waste, waste from landscapers" (T.956) and construction and demolition debris, "clean debris, inert materials, construction and demolition wastes that are inert, roofing materials," id., and the like, not mixed either with industrial or with regular household garbage, would be accepted for disposal in the Class III facility. Unless these materials are adulterated, they are "easy to bio-degrade . . . [or] are insoluble," (T. 1923) and rainwater percolating through them should yield a leachate with "neutral pH . . . low to moderate [biological oxygen demand] . . . [and] metals [if any] . . . below detection limits or background conditions." T.1923. But "some materials get in" (T. 2106) despite efforts to exclude them. "Demolition debris can have oiled floors and creosoted pilings as part and parcel of the structure." T. 3008. Old paint contains lead and cadmium. Debris from old houses can include rat poisons. Grass clippings "could contain small amounts of herbicides and pesticides." T.2101. In fact, "it's not unusual for yard waste to be very rich in biocides." T. 3009. Such chemicals are used in Jacksonville. When autopsies of seagulls found at the Girvin Road landfill revealed traces of diazanon, tests of water taken from "the stormwater ponds in the subdivision across the street" (T.990) showed diazanon was present there. Bioassays the DER runs on effluent from the City's Buckman wastewater treatment plant regularly report toxicity in excess of allowable limits (T.1877-8) and the EPA has "identified malathion and diazanon as the toxicants," (T. 1881) which are killing at least one species of flea in certain standard laboratory tests performed on the effluent. Leachate Leakage The composite liner would not keep all leachate generated in the Class I landfill from reaching the naturally occurring soils underneath, and eventually the groundwater under the site. Even under normal operating conditions, and even on the City's optimistic assumption that it can achieve a permeability of 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second, thousands of gallons of leachate a year would escape through flaws in the liner while the landfill was in operation. If leachate drain pipes burst or torrential rains required backing leachate up in the cells, thousands of gallons a day could leak. If two lifts of clayey sand achieve a permeability no lower than 1 x 10-5 centimeters per second, millions of gallons of leachate would enter the groundwater over the ten-year active life of the landfill, even without burst pipes or extraordinary precipitation. Once the Class I landfill attained the design height, it would be capped with impermeable materials to minimize leachate generation. As with the liner underneath, the impermeable cap would be covered with sand to facilitate drainage. Vegetation would hold the drainage soil in place. Closure plans have already been drawn, but they are subject to revision and require DER approval before implementation. If necessary, side slopes could be lined to prevent leachate seepage there. Closure would reduce, but would not end, leachate production and leakage. Virtually impermeable to water, high density polyethylene is highly permeable to certain permeants, including some that occur in landfill leachate. Leachate constituents known as "aromatic hydrocarbons" move "right on through" (T. 3017) high density polyethylene. To some extent, the montmorillonite component of the liner under the Class I area would impede these materials' movement into naturally occurring soils. The evidence did not quantify the montmorillonite's efficacy in this regard, but the City's expert's testimony that leakage of this kind would be "insignificant" (T. 830) went unrebutted. Permeation aside, the rate at which leachate leaks depends on the nature, number and size of flaws in the synthetic liner, the height and duration of the leachate head above the defects, and the transmissivity of what is underneath. Here transmissivity turns both on the hydraulic conductivity of the clayey sand in the vicinity and on the extent of air spaces between the clayey sand and the overlying high density polyethylene. Sand grains cause microscopic spaces, while imperfections in the montmorillonite layer and wrinkling of the polyethylene cause larger spaces. Leachate leaking into a space between the geomembrane and the soil spreads over a larger area before penetrating the clayey soil, in correspondingly larger volumes. Calculations predicated on the transmissivity characteristics of the geonet and the sand layer above it demonstrate a theoretical leachate flow over the liner so rapid that leachate would never accumulate on the geomembrane to a depth of as much as a tenth of an inch. But these calculations assume no ponding behind wrinkles in the synthetic liner, or any other impediment to the flow of leachate. Especially since holes in liners are likely to occur near wrinkles (because stresses are greater there) a more realistic assumption, for calculating leachate leakage rates, is a head of one inch, "the smallest practical hydraulic head you can achieve." T. 2994. On the twelfth day of hearing, when St. Johns County's liner expert testified that a six-inch layer of the montmorillonite might result in permeability as high as 5 x 10-4 centimeters per second, the City had not yet amended its application to increase the thickness of the clayey sand layer from six inches to twelve. The City's proposal now calls for two lifts of a 20 percent clayey sand with a saturated hydraulic conductivity in situ of 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second. This can be achieved, if at all, only with material that laboratory tests indicate has hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-9 centimeters per second or less. "[I]f you put down clay that the lab says has a permeability of 10 to the minus 7 centimeters per second, . . . when you put it down in the field you get from one to two orders of magnitude greater permeability than that. . . . related to how thick it is." T. 2988. Even a three-foot liner comprised of six lifts ends up with conductivity ten times greater than the same material under laboratory conditions. Mr. Deans, who designed the liner for the City, testified that a permeability of 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second was "readily achievable" even with six inches of clayey sand, but he had never designed a liner before, and his testimony in this regard has not been credited. To judge from its eleventh- hour amendment, the City did not believe it, either. Only two lifts are to comprise the clayey sand layer. No study of a clayey sand layer as thin as 12 inches has found hydraulic conductivity of less than 1 x 10-5 centimeters per second. Three lifts are necessary to create an effective barrier. "[Y]ou need at least three lifts to get the middle one hopefully working right." T. 2987. "[E]ngineers believe that the bottom layer gets fouled, the top layer cracks and has problems. Your best chance is the in between layers. You need at least three layers, and they would rather have four to be reasonable, and EPA says six." Id. Studies of twelve-inch liners put down in two lifts ("[t]he thinnest one we found anybody had ever studied" T. 2980) showed them to be "inadequate." T. 2987. With an inch of head, assuming defects with an average area of 1 x 10-5 square meters, an assumption with which all the experts seemed comfortable (the City's expert assumed larger holes), the published EPA formula yields a per defect leakage rate of 6.7598 x 10-11 cubic meters per second, assuming hydraulic conductivity for the montmorillonite layer of 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second. But plans to use only two lifts to form a 12-inch layer do not give reasonable assurance of vertical hydraulic conductivity that low. Mr. Coram's testimony to the contrary, expressly predicated on reports of laboratory tests on samples, did not address the evidence that laboratory tests do not tell the whole story, in the case of a thin layer of clayey sand compromised not only by inherent imperfections, but also by highly permeable subgrade soils, kneaded into it by the sheepsfoot. Because "clods are broken down in the laboratory and stones and cobbles are screened from the sample . . . the effects of both are not accounted for in permeability tests on laboratory compacted samples." City's Exhibit No. 190. Substituting a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-5 centimeters per second, the EPA formula yields a leakage rate between 57 and 58 times greater: 3.8898 x 10-9 cubic meters per second. Although the EPA's most recently published leak rate formula makes no allowance for less than an ideal fit between the components of a composite liner, City's Exhibit No. 190, the author of the EPA formula, who testified for St. Johns County, subscribed to modifications to the formula developed to take this factor into account. DER's Exhibit No. 35. The montmorillonite layer's hydraulic conductivity is an unrealistically low measure of the transmissivity of the medium underneath the polyethylene. Using it for this purpose, without adjustment, ignores inevitable, intervening air spaces. Perfect contact between a synthetic liner and the soil it overlies cannot be accomplished, even in a laboratory setting. On a project of the kind proposed, contact would range from good, where the relatively larger size of sand grains in the clayey mix creates air spaces, to poor, where wrinkles (left in to avoid the weakening effects of stretching the material) cause much larger air spaces. No expert found fault with the more recent formulae (Bonaparte/Giroud) set out in DER's Exhibit No. 35, and none quarreled with the proposition that the published EPA formula made unrealistic assumptions about the contact between polyethylene and clayey sand. The Bonaparte/Giroud formula that assumes good contact yields a leakage rate of 1.6090 x 10-8 cubic meters per second per defect, a little more than four times what the EPA formula predicts for an ideal fit, assuming an inch of head and vertical hydraulic conductivity for montmorillonite in situ of 1 x 10-5 centimeters per second. Assuming poor contact, without varying any other assumptions, yields a leakage rate approximately 5.5 times greater: 8.8115 x 10-8 cubic meters per second. In its proposed recommended order, at page 35, DER accepts, at least for purposes of argument, the proposition that contact between soil and geomembrane would be poor in places, and calculates a leachate leakage rate of 5.45 x 10-3 gallons per day (2.3887 x 10-10 cubic meters per second per defect.) But this assumes that "the permeability of the City's clay liner will be 1 x 10- 7 cm per second and the maximum head over liner will be 0.062 inches." The evidence showed that the maximum head could not be kept below one inch, and did not give reasonable assurances that two lifts would result in vertical hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second for the clayey layer. Substituting an inch for .062 inches gives a rate of 2.9177 x 10-9 cubic meters per second. Substituting 1 x 10-6 for 1 x 10-7 and an inch for 0.062 inches, the leakage rate becomes 1.6034 x 10-8 cubic meters per second. Groundwater Contamination Uncontroverted expert opinion put the flow of groundwater under the Class I disposal area at 0.063 cubic feet or 0.47 gallons per day (2.0592 x 10-8 cubic meters per second) through a hypothetical square or cube one foot on a side. Except under unusual conditions, leachate leaking from the Class I facility would, before entering the groundwater, pass through approximately a foot of fill dirt or naturally occurring soils, which consist in large part (92 to 99 percent) of relatively inert, quartz sand. The presence of organic materials, however small the quantities, raises the prospect of adsorption and other chemical reactions, before steady state is attained. Physically, the soil would disperse the leachate, diminishing concentrations of leachate constituents entering groundwater. After such attenuation as the soil afforded, leachate would enter the groundwater, which would dilute and further disperse it, although not nearly as dramatically as the City's toxicologist testified. This witness assumed uniform mixing, rather than the discrete plume which persons with greater expertise in groundwater contamination convincingly predicted. By using the rate of "groundwater flow beneath a defect and the rate of leakage through that defect . . . [he] c[a]me up with a volume to volume dilution factor to identify a concentration in the groundwater." T. 1214. Because Dr. Jones took an unrealistically low leakage rate as a starting point, he predicted an unrealistically low concentration of one part leachate to 4,400 parts groundwater, inside a cubic foot immediately below each leak. Concentrations vary directly with the leakage rate per defect. T. 1224. The formula that assumes good, but not ideal, contact between liner components yields a leakage rate per defect of 1.609 x 10-8 cubic meters per second, if the layer of clayey sand has hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-5 centimeters per second. Substituting this leakage rate, the City witness' methodology yields a dilution ratio of 2.0592 parts groundwater to 1.609 parts leachate, or 1.2798:1, more than a hundred times less than the 130:1 dilution ratio that the City concedes is the minimum it must prove, at the edge of the zone of discharge. See Respondent City of Jacksonville's Motion to Strike St. Johns County's Memorandum Concerning Leachate Rates, p. 5. Substituting the coefficient for poor contact, the ratio in the hypothetical cube under the landfill becomes a paltry 2.0592 parts groundwater to 8.8115 parts leachate or .2337:1. Using Dr. Jones' methodology, a leakage rate of 1.6034 x 10-8 cubic meters per second per defect would result in leachate concentrations in groundwater of one part leachate to 1.2483 parts groundwater. Substituting a rate of 2.9177 x 10-9 cubic meters per second per defect yields a ratio of 2.0592 parts groundwater to .29177 parts leachate, or one part leachate to 7.0576 parts ground water. Even if the contact between geomembrane and montmorillonite were uniformly good and the clayey sand layer had a permeability of 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second at every point, a dilution ratio of only 37.4444:1 would result. In 132 acres of high density polyethylene, the evidence showed that 660 flaws could reasonably be anticipated, and that 132 flaws were absolutely unavoidable. Methylene chloride would end up in the groundwater in proscribed, carcinogenic concentrations as far away as 20 feet from many leaks within 90 days. Under some leaks, perhaps all, benzene, a proven human carcinogen, would also occur in prohibited concentrations. As leachate plumes dispersed, concentrations would diminish, eventually to levels at which they pose "potentially acceptable" (T. 1475) risks even in the case of "a 70-year water consumption of two liters of water per day by a 70-kilogram adult." T. 1217. No evidence suggested that they would remain in concentrations above these levels by the time they reached the edge of the zone of discharge. City's Exhibit No. 193, which uses a leakage rate much lower than the range of leakage rates likely to occur, if the landfill is built, predicts concentrations of various leachate constituents at the edge of the zone of discharge, assuming a leak at the edge of the disposal area. Multiplying predicted concentrations by quotients, obtained dividing likely leakage rates by the assumed rate, suggests carcinogenic leachate constituents would not occur in prohibited concentrations at the edge of the zone of discharge. But extrapolating in this fashion also suggests that violations may occur outside the zone of discharge, absent attenuation in the vadose zone, in the event of a leak at the edge of the Class I disposal area, for iron, manganese and methyl ethyl ketone. Groundwater Monitoring The City proposes to place monitoring wells at intervals of 250 to 500 feet around the Class I and Class III disposal sites. Some 25 shallow monitoring wells would be located 50 to 100 feet from the deposition areas, within the zone of discharge. In addition, seven clusters, each consisting of three wells screened at different depths, would punctuate the boundary of the zone of discharge. A cluster of wells upgradient would make it possible to monitor background conditions. With two-inch diameters and ten-foot screens, each well would receive a flow of less than a gallon a day. The contaminant plume from the Class III landfill would be large enough to be detected readily in samples drawn from a number of wells. But there was testimony that the plume, even from a 10-foot wide leak at the edge of the Class I disposal area, could pass between two wells 500 feet apart, undetected. Rather than a single large leak, moreover, the experts predict hundreds of small leaks in the Class I disposal area liner. The assumption is that flaws in the geomembrane would have an area of only one tenth of a square centimeter, on average. Any one of the plumes emanating from such a leak could easily pass undetected through a 500-foot gap between monitoring wells. The monitoring plan apparently relies on the great number of leaks expected. But even if samples from a monitoring well revealed a leak, the magnitude of hundreds of other leaks would not be disclosed. Well Contrived After the City filed its application for a permit to construct a landfill, but before DER had issued its notice of intent to grant the application, four wells were put in on the McCormick property, within three feet of the southern boundary of the City's property, and within 205 feet of the proposed Class III disposal area. The wells are more than 500 feet from the lined, Class I disposal area. Spaced at 1,000-foot intervals, within a 125- foot-wide utility easement in favor of the City of Jacksonville Beach, three of the wells are 25 feet deep and one is 28 feet deep. McCormicks' Exhibit No. 7. Each consists of a length of PVC pipe, 1 1/4" in diameter, leading to a red pitcher pump mounted on a wooden platform supported by four fence posts. City's Exhibit No. 194. Pumps of this kind must "periodically be pumped and primed or they have to periodically be taken apart and have the internal seals and leather valves replaced." T.2005. On April 7, 1988, the St. Johns River Water Management District issued a warning notice to "Haden McCormick" alleging that the wells had not been grouted, had been dug without necessary permits, and had not been the subject of required well completion reports. The next day, the St. Johns County Environmental Protection Board, apparently in response to applications inspired by the warning notice, issued a permit for each well designating the "usage" of each as irrigation. McCormicks' Exhibit No. 7. Well completion reports dated April 14, 1988, reported that the wells had been grouted. McCormicks' Exhibit No. 3. Asked the purpose of the wells in a deposition on April 25, 1988, J. T. McCormick said, "We need to monitor what [the landfill is] doing . . . [W]e need to . . . prepare ourselves for having people live in this area, to occupy it, to monitor it." T. 2227-8 A week earlier J. C. Williamson, Jr. had requested on behalf of B.B. McCormick and Sons, Inc. that the St. Johns County Environmental Protection Board amend the permits to show well usage as "Private Potable" instead of "Irrigation". This request was granted on April 27, 1988. McCormicks' Exhibit No. 2. On May 2, 1988, St. Johns River Water Management District's chief hydrologist wrote a lawyer for the McCormicks that "the completion reports submitted by a licensed driller, and the St. Johns County permits fulfill the requirements of the District." McCormicks' Exhibit No. 1. Analysis of samples of water taken from the wells on February 27 and 28, 1989, revealed total coliform levels acceptable for private wells. John Haydon McCormick explained the decision to put the wells in: [D]uring that week the City had filed their application with the DER which, in a sense, fixed their design . . . and when we became aware that this Class III landfill was as close as it is to our border, we became concerned about the future use of potable drinking water, and after consulting with counsel we were informed that we could legally install wells along that border. T. 2242. No owner of the property where the wells are located lives on the property nor, as far as the record shows, has an owner or anybody who does live on the property ever drunk water from the wells. About a half mile from the City's property are two other wells near a house on the McCormick property. When an owner's son drank water from one or more of the wells, as recently as the fall of 1988, he had to take water to the site with him in order to do it. The hand pumps require priming and nobody has bothered to store water near them for that purpose. On February 26, 1989, when the City's expert arrived for "splitting samples to submit to different laboratories," (T.1007) The "pumps were in a 20-gallon washtub in the back of . . . one of Mr. McCormick's employee's trucks. They were all removed from the well heads . . . [apparently] being soaked to generally recondition the seals in the pumps and to sanitize the pumps." T.2008 Two "of the old leather seals from the pumps [were] on the ground." T.2009. Within the shallow aquifer, groundwater flows from the wells northerly underneath the proposed Class III disposal area in the direction of Durbin Swamp. Use of the four existing wells "would in no way modify the groundwater flow system." T. 2045. But a well or wells could be so constructed on the McCormick property that continuously pumping from them would reverse some of the groundwater flow under the proposed Class III disposal area, to the extent that water flowing from beneath the Class III disposal area could be drawn from one of the existing wells along the McCormick boundary. T. 2075-80. Nor would consumptive use permits be necessary to dig wells which could cause such a change in groundwater flows. T. 2075. When the City discovered the wells abutting the southern boundary of its property, it did not direct its engineers to alter the design of the landfill to preclude solid waste disposal within 500 feet of the wells. The total project cost, excluding legal fees, is estimated in the neighborhood of $46,000,000. Redrawing the plans now to reduce the size of the Class III disposal area, without altering the size of the Class I disposal area, would take two to three months, and cost approximately $100,000. This approach would require reducing the capacity of the Class III area from 4.1 million cubic yards to 2.5 million cubic yards and, unless construction debris, which can be disposed of without a DER permit, were diverted elsewhere, its useful life from about ten years to about six years. Tipping fees would have to be higher "to recover the capital fixed costs over fewer tons." (T. 2208) Increased design costs alone would require recouping an additional 4 cents per cubic yard (more considering the time value of money) from tipping fees for Class III debris. Operations would be less efficient and presumably more expensive. T. 2207. Alternatively, the entire facility could be redesigned to achieve the same capacity and useful life as now contemplated. Such a redesign would require four to six months' work and cost approximately $250,000. Recovering this cost through increased tipping fees for Class III wastes would add slightly more than 6 cents a cubic yard (again ignoring the time value of money.) Alternative sites for disposal of Class III waste are available to the City. Indeed the site for which the City now seeks a permit was not even among the ten sites originally considered for the project. T. 2224-5. Decreased transportation costs to another site closer to the source of such waste might more than offset increased tipping fees. But separate facilities could create other problems. Ms. Nogas explained: From an operations standpoint . . .If I run out of Class III area and . . . site a separate Class III area somewhere else, if I had a truck coming to that facility and he really should have been in a Class I area, and I say "No, go out the gate and go five miles down the road . . .[to the] Class I facility," . . . I have a much better chance of . . . him never showing up at my Class I facility. T 2208-9. On the other hand, when asked about placing a Class III facility elsewhere in Duval County, Ms. Nogas, reiterating an earlier statement, testified, "[I]f that were what we had to go to, I would have no operational problems with it." T. 221. Mr. Wells' testimony that there "are 16,000 acres of less environmentally flawed acres seven to 12 miles from the generating centroid accessible from four-lane roads and not near residential or commercial properties," (T. 1248) and that the proposed site "is the furtherest site from the generating centroid, 21 and three-quarters miles to the dump site, and will cost taxpayers an extra $3 million to $5 million a year in longer haul time" (T. 1247) was received on the issue of the decisionmakers' credibility only.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DER deny the City's request for variance. That DER deny the City's application for a permit to construct a landfill. That DER deny the City's application for a dredge and fill permit. That DER grant the City's application for a permit for management and storage of surface waters, on conditions proposed in the intent to issue, unless modified by agreement of all parties. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Robert T. Benton, II 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 16th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX A Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-4, 6, 10-12, 14, 16, 18, 21,23, 24-28, 33, 35, 37, 38, 41-45, 47-48, the first sentence of No. 51, Nos. 52-56, 57 except for the first sentence, which is rejected, 58, 59, 62, 64, 66, 68-74, 95-103, 106-109, 111- 116, 118, 131, 132, 133 except for subpart 7, 134, 136 and 137 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 5, and the second sentence of petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 51, the design rate is not the same as the current rate of deposition. Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed findings of fact Nos. 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, 22, 75, 110 and 138 relate to subordinate matters. Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 19 accurately recites the testimony. Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 20 is immaterial. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 29, the City's evidence that leakage of this kind was insignificant went unrebutted. Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed findings of fact Nos. 32 and 120-123 are immaterial to the present application. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 30, the City's estimates were unreasonably low. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 31, the evidence showed that nine gallons a day was at the upper limit, not that it would actually occur. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 34, at least 13 substances occur in concentrations that exceed health-based standards. Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed findings of fact Nos. 36 and 63, 117, 119 and 135 are proposed conclusions of law. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 39, the probability of a leak on the edge of the disposal area was not established. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 40, the evidence did not show that when "two or more toxic substances are combined" they necessarily have synergistic impacts. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 46, the City's assumption of no attenuation was an appropriately conservative approach that is not inconsistent with the City's unrefuted testimony that attenuation would occur. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 49, the evidence did not prove that the City would allow four feet of leachate to stand on the liner. Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed findings of fact Nos. 50 and 60 immaterial to the present application. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 61, the evidence did not establish the contentions following the clause ending "and into Durbin Creek,". With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed findings of fact Nos. 65 and 67, the McCormick wells have served ornamental and talismanic purposes, but they were not shown to be potable water supply wells, within the meaning of the rule. At the time of hearing the pumps did not function and were not mounted on the wells. Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 76 has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material, except that there was at least one effort to collect toxic wastes in Jacksonville. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed findings of fact Nos. 77 through 94, proposed permit conditions are not proposed findings of fact. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 124, the evidence was clear that more wetlands were to be destroyed than were to be created. Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 125 is rejected as against the weight of the evidence. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed findings of fact Nos. 126, 127 and 128, mitigation , particularly as regards the wood stork, if the landfill is built. Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 129, Durbin Creek enters Julington Creek, shortly before the latter reaches the river. Findings of fact proposed by petitioners J.T. McCormick and the Estate of Benjamin R. McCormick (McCormicks) Nos. 1-4, 6-10, 13, 15-17, 20, 21 and 23 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to McCormicks' proposed finding of fact No. 5, a preponderance of the credible evidence did not establish that the wells would be used to supply potable water in the future, even if the pumps are repaired to make it possible. Nor did the evidence establish any such authentic, "non-forensic," use in the past. With respect to McCormicks' proposed finding of fact No. 11, evidence was adduced that other sites had been considered by engineers the City engaged. T. 2224-5. With respect to McCormicks' proposed finding of fact No. 12, testimony put the delay at two to three months. T. 2139. The City could have avoided this delay. McCormicks' proposed finding of fact No. 14 has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material, except that the proportion of the Class III waste stream construction and demolition debris comprises is not stated at T. 2149. With respect to McCormicks' proposed findings of fact Nos. 18 and 19, the four and six cents per ton computations ignore the time value of money, among other things. McCormicks' proposed finding of fact No. 22 is immaterial. McCormicks' proposed finding of fact No. 24 is properly a proposed conclusion of law. Findings of fact proposed by Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., St. Johns County Audubon Society, Sierra Club, Inc., Coastal Environmental Society and River Systems Preservation, Inc. came in two unnumbered installments. Findings of fact have addressed the substance of each. Without numbering, it is difficult to treat the material. Petitioner STOP's proposed findings of fact Nos. 5-7, 9-10, 12-18, 20, 22- 24, 26-27, 29, 32-47, 49, 50, 52, 55-57, 59-60, 62, 63, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72 and 73 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner STOP's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-4, 30, 31, 65, 71, 75 and 76 are properly proposed conclusions of law in part and relate otherwise to DER's preliminary analysis, which is technically immaterial. With respect to petitioner STOP's proposed findings of fact Nos. 8 and 58, Mr. Kappes said he had seen alligator on site but, when asked for specifics, testified to tracks they had left in the southeast corner of the site. Equally ambiguously, the City stated in its draft application that alligator had been "noted" on the property. The evidence did not show that ospreys are protected or listed in Duval County. Petitioner STOP's proposed findings of fact Nos. 11 and 74 relate to subordinate matters. With respect to petitioner STOP's proposed finding of fact No. 19, the inference that all commensals is present is problematic here, since the gopher tortoises were relocated by man from a site many miles away. With respect to petitioner STOP's proposed finding of fact No. 21, 80 to 82 of 105.7 acres of gopher tortoise habitat would be destroyed. Petitioner STOP's proposed finding of fact No. 25 is immaterial to this application. With respect to petitioner STOP's proposed finding of fact No. 28, Mr. Wiley so testified. With respect to petitioner STOP's proposed findings of fact Nos. 48, 51 and 64, although the conservation easement on uplands would not result in additional habitat, it would preclude further diminution. With respect to petitioner STOP's proposed findings of fact Nos. 53 and 54, no eagles are currently nesting on site, and Eagle Nest Island, where eagles nested until 1983, is off site. With respect to petitioner STOP's proposed finding of fact No. 61, the evidence did not establish that Mr. Kappes saw the red-cockaded woodpecker on site, even though he found six active nests within three miles of the site. With respect to petitioner STOP's proposed finding of fact No. 68, Dr. White so testified. DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-9, 11-15, 17, 24, 26, 33, 37, 39, 41-45, the first three sentences of No. 50, Nos. 52-56, 62-64, 66, 67, except as regards inherent legislative facts, 70-87, 89-92 and 95 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 10, 0.9 acres of wetlands contiguous to Durbin Swamp and within the jurisdiction of the St. Johns River Water Management District would be used for a storm water retention basin. DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 18 and 20 have been adopted, in substance, except that these steps do not ensure or guarantee a quick return of water quality functions. DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 21, 32, 35, the last sentence of No. 50, Nos. 51, 88 have been rejected as against the weight of evidence. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 22 and 28, mitigation areas with deep ponds in the middle will permit fish to avoid the conditions under which wood storks feed. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 23, the steep sided ponds, sparser canopies and lesser extent of created isolated wetlands offset their "higher quality." With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 25, the mitigation proposed does not amount to a one to one ratio. While significant, the easements preserve the status quo and do not compensate for lost wetland functions. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 27, the evidence suggested no reason why bears would not forage in isolated, as well as contiguous wetlands. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 29, to the extent possible, existing trees would be transplanted; if they all survived, the number of perches would be undiminished, except for branches broken in the process. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 30, sightings nearby and habitat on site amount to evidence of use of the site. As regards the indigo snake, testimony that these animals were introduced to the site was uncontroverted. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 31, alligator tracks were found in the southeastern part of the site. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 34, no southeastern kestrel nests were found on site. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 36, it is not in the public interest to issue a permit for a lined landfill that would cause pollution in violation of DER's water quality standards. If a landfill were properly permitted, it would be in the public interest to have access. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 38, the first sentence (which seems to contradict the fourth) has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 40, there was no evidence of cumulative impacts to Durbin Swamp, as opposed to Durbin and Julington Creeks. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 46-48, the clayey sand, placed in two six-inch lifts, would have much greater permeability as a unit than samples of the same material screened for certain imperfections and tested in the laboratory. In the field, it would not be possible to remove all clods and other materials that make for greater vertical hydraulic conductivity of the unit. Subgrade mixing would occur, in putting down the first of the two lifts. A 12-inch layer would be many more times transmissive than a liner of the same material put down in six six-inch lifts to attain the three feet DER requires, when no synthetic liner is used. Mr. Fluet did not testify that a 12-inch layer would achieve a permeability of 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second. He testified that nobody who had studied 12-inch layers had reported permeability of less than 1 x 10-5 centimeters per second for a clayey layer of that thickness. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 49, the geomembrane is subject to the effects of pressure and temperature variation would contribute to wrinkling. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 57, leachate leakage would diminish after closure, but would not stop altogether. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 59 and 60, the working hypothesis is that even a single molecule of certain leachate constituents may initiate cancer, although concentrations below the levels identified are said to pose no more than an acceptable risk of doing so. DER's proposed finding of fact No. 61 describes the methodology correctly, but the particular results have not been accepted. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 65, predicted concentrations depend on the leakage rate assumed. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 68, data showing the composition of discharges to ground water from other Class III landfills were not presented. Supposed "legislative facts" do not constitute evidence. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 69, the evidence did not show what concentrations of biocides or other chemical constituents were likely to be. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 93, the phrase "monitoring well" was not used. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 94, wells Nos. 21 and 22 were between 25 and 35 feet deep. Haydon McCormick testified that a shallow well near the house was for potable water supply. DER's proposed finding of fact No. 96, has been adopted, in substance, except that additional time might not be required for permitting. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 97 and 99, balancing of social and economic interests is appropriate only if hardship is proven, and immaterial otherwise. The City's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-9, 16-18, 20-25, 30, 33, 35-38, 42, 44, 46, 49, 50, the first two sentences of No. 55, Nos. 58-62, 65, 73, 74, except for the last sentence, Nos. 75, 77-83, 88-92, 94-100, 104, 107, 108 and 110 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 10, despite timbering of the uplands the site was characterized as "relatively unaltered." With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 11, no decline in water levels was shown to be irreversible. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 12, the study was of "trivial value." With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 13, bald eagles and wood storks do make use of the site and indigo snake(s) were set loose there. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 14, a witness testified to his "confidence" (T.2918) that the kestrel he spotted was a Southeastern kestrel. Signs of alligator were found near the southeast corner of the property. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 15, hunting was mentioned. The City's proposed findings of fact Nos. 19, 54, 56 and 84 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 26, the witness so testified. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 27, it was not proven that noise would be "minimized." With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 28, bears could move through the culvert, but elsewhere the access road (particularly during the day), fences and human activity on site would indeed "impede black bear movement in the area." The City's proposed findings of fact Nos. 29, 48, the last sentence of 55, Nos. 57, 71, 72, 85, 87 and the last sentence of 101 have been rejected as being against the weight of the evidence or as unsupported by the preponderance of evidence. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 31, mobility will not assure successful relocation if existing populations are fully utilizing habitat in the vicinity. The City's proposed findings of fact Nos. 32, 86 and 93 are properly proposed conclusions of law. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 34, groundwater was shown unlikely to reach solid waste on site. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 40, the maximum head would not be less than one inch. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 41, such sand might not be available on site. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 43, some leachate would leak through the liner. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 45, some rainwater would infiltrate. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 47, the evidence did not show that the clayey sand layer would attain so low a vertical hydraulic conductivity. If these liners have performed well, it has not been without leakage, both through flaws and by permeation. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 51, the subgrade would be inspected, in an effort to assure complete removal of sharp objects. With respect to the City's proposed findings of fact Nos. 52 and 53, permeability is specific to the permeant. The values quoted are for water. High density polyethylene is highly permeable to aromatic hydrocarbons. That liners leak is not speculation. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 63, the design engineer envisioned circumstances that would require backing leachate up in the landfill. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 64, violations were proven, in the absence of sufficient attenuation in the vadose zone, and attenuation there was not quantified. With respect to the City's proposed findings of fact Nos. 66 and 67, these evaluations assumed unrealistically low leachate leakage rates. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 68, this elaborate house of cards bears little relationship to the language of the free from rule. But this approach, too, shows violations, if realistic leakage rates are used. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 69, credible and credited evidence of dramatically higher leachate leakage rates than they assumed contradicted their conclusions. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 70, the witness so testified. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 76, the precise constituents of the Class III leachate were not proven. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 102, the witness so testified. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 103, the well that Haydon McCormick jetted in was 25 to 35 feet deep. With respect to the City's proposed findings of fact Nos. 105 and 106, wells could be placed so that enough water drawn from them would reverse the gradient and cause pollutants to move toward the McCormick property. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 109, the evidence about the effect on operations was ambiguous. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 111, it is unlikely that the McCormicks would take steps to reverse the flow of groundwater. APPENDIX B Three methods of calculating per defect leachate leakage rates (in cubic meters per second) were proven at hearing, each expressed as an equation or formula requiring values for three variables, for their solution, viz.: h = height of leachate head over defect (in meters) a = area of defect (in square meters) Ks = permeability (vertical hydraulic conductivity) of clayey sand layer beneath defect (in meters per second) The method advocated by the City, published by the EPA, and shown (by the author) to reflect ideal contact between liner components, which does not obtain in practice, is: Q = (0.7) x (h) x (a0.1 x Ks0.88). The method advocated by the County, endorsed by the author of the formula EPA published, and shown to reflect good contact between liner components, shown likely to occur in places, is: Q = (0.21) x (h0.9) x (a0.1 x Ks 0.74) The method advocated by the County, endorsed by the author of the formula EPA published, and shown to reflect poor contact between liner components, shown likely to occur in places, is: Q = (1.15) x (h0.9) x (a0.1 x Ks 0.74) In each case, Q represents the flow of leachate through each defect. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlos Alvarez and Carolyn S. Raepple Hopping, Boyd, Green and Sams Post Office Box 6525 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Harrison D. Upchurch and Frank D. Upchurch, III Upchurch, Bailey, and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Box 170 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-0170 Joseph M. Glickstein, Jr. Glickstein and Glickstein 444 Third Street Neptune Beach, Florida 32233-5111 David S. Dee and Allan Wagner Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel Smith & Cutler, P.A. Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 C. Rufus Pennington, III Margol and Pennington, P.A. Suite 1702, American Heritage Tower 76 South Laura Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Debra Swim 1323 Diamond Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sidney F. Ansbacher Turner, Ford and Buckingham, P.A. 1904 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Dan Brooks Hendrickson and 104 Sixth Avenue 4620 Arapahoe Avenue Pass-A-Grille, Florida 32706 Jacksonville, FL 32208 Frank X. Friedman, Jr. T. R. Hainline, Jr. G. Stephen Manning Marcia P. Parker Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay 1300 Gulf Life Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207 William H. Congdon and Chris McGuire 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kathryn L. Mennella Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32078-1429 Larry Gilmore 9131 Fort Caroline Road Jacksonville, FL 32225 Larry A. Wells 237 Pablo Road Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of real property located in Dixie County, Florida, more particularly described as Tract 10, Suwannee Shores Run Subdivision. The property is approximately one acre in size and was purchased in December of 1989. The subdivision is unrecorded, and there was no testimony regarding a platting date thereof. On January 17, 1990, the Petitioner made an application for an OSDS permit for the aforesaid property. The application was for a new single-family mobile home system. The residence involved will contain two bedrooms and a heated and cooled area of approximately 480 square feet, with an approximate 300-gallon-per-day sewage flow. Upon receiving the application, the Department's local public health official informed the Petitioner that he would have to obtain a benchmark elevation for the surface of his property and also establish the ten-year flood elevation for the property. The Petitioner, therefore, obtained the services of a registered land surveyor, who established a benchmark elevation for the subject property of 19.23 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The mark is actually 6 inches above ground level. The actual elevation of the surface grade of the property at the proposed septic tank system installation site is 19 feet above MSL. The ground water level at the time of the evaluation of the site by the Department's personnel was 66 inches below the surface of the lot. The wet season ground water or water table level is 60 inches below the surface of the lot. The property is characterized by slight to moderate limited soils, consisting of fine sand from 6 inches depth down to 60 inches depth. The first 6 inches of soil near the surface of the property is organic in nature. The information, contained in a report promulgated by the Suwannee River Water Management District and submitted to the Department by the Petitioner with the permit application, shows that the ten-year flood elevation for the property in question is 23 feet above MSL. That ten-year flood elevation was not refuted. The property, thus, is located within the ten-year flood plain of the Suwannee River; and it is also located within the "regulatory floodway". There is not a central water system available to the property, and potable water for the subject dwelling will come from a well. In addition to lying beneath the ten-year flood elevation, the property lies within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River, as mentioned above. This means that if a mounded septic tank and drain-field system were installed, (which would likely result in appropriate treatment of the sewage effluent because of site conditions referenced herein); in order to install such a system, to raise the drain fields above the ten-year flood elevation, a certification by a registered engineer would have to be performed to establish that the installation of the required volume of fill dirt for the mounded system would not cause an elevation of the "base flood". No such engineering testimony or evidence was offered in this proceeding, however. Thus, this portion of Rule 10-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, has not been complied with. The OSDS could appropriately be installed from an environmental standpoint, given the depth of appropriate moderate to slightly limited soils prevailing at the site and the depth of the water table. The estimated wet season water table is 60 inches below the existing surface grade, and the normal water table is 66 inches below the surface grade. Although organic soil prevails for the first 6 inches at the site; below the first 6 inches, the soils are characterized as being fine sand. This soil type and condition, as well as the depth of the water table below the location of the drain field and septic tank site establishes that installation and operation of an OSDS in this location would likely be successful. Since the property and the installation site are beneath the ten-year flood elevation, however, a mounded system would have to be installed to raise the bottom of the drain-field trenches or absorption beds above that ten-year flood elevation referenced above. Thus, although a mounded system would appear to be feasible, the appropriate engineering testimony, with regard to its presence in the regulatory floodway, was not offered. Thus, the grant of the permit based upon mounding of the system as a reasonable alternative approach to successful treatment and disposal of the effluent in question has not been established. The Respondent, by letter of April 24, 1990, advised the Petitioner of the denial of the OSDS permit and also advised the Petitioner that he should pursue a formal administrative proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings, rather than file an informal variance application before the Respondent's own variance board. The Respondent took the position that a variance could not be granted from the requirements of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, because the property was located within the ten- year flood elevation of the Suwannee River and because of the Respondent's interpretation of the effect of the Governor's Executive Order No. 90-14, which adopted by reference the Suwannee River Task Force recommendation that all such OSDS's be prohibited within the ten-year flood elevation. The Respondent thus declined to exercise its discretion, accorded it in the statute and rules cited hereinbelow, to entertain and consider a variance application. It was established that the lot in question is not subject to frequent flooding. However, because the surface grade is beneath the ten-year flood elevation, the bottom of the drain-field trenches or absorption beds would also be beneath the ten-year flood elevation, although the property is amenable to the installation of an effective OSDS otherwise because of the depth of the wet season water table and the types of soil prevailing at the site. The Petitioner established a hardship due to the fact that he has paid a substantial sum of money for the property and now is unable to develop it unless entitlement to an OSDS or some reasonable alternative is gained. No substantial proof of a truly-effective, reasonable alternative method of treating the effluent in question was established by the Petitioner. The Petitioner did establish, however, that a mounded system could be made to successfully operate, treat and dispose of the sewage effluent. A mounded system, however, would necessitate the required engineering certification and calculations before installation. No such effort has been made with appropriate engineering personnel and no evidence of such was adduced in this proceeding. The Petitioner has also raised the possibility that an aerobic septic tank and drain-field system might be an effective alternative treatment and disposal method for the property in question. An aerobic system involves the injection of air into the attendant septic tank to support aerobic bacteria, which break down and treat sewage at a faster, more effective rate than does the normal, anaerobic bacteria-based system. The resulting effluent is substantially lower in BOD and suspended solids than is the effluent from the normal, subterranean anaerobic septic tank and drain-field disposal system. The problem with such an aerobic system is that it involves mechanical equipment, especially an external electric motor and pump to force air into the system. This is disadvantageous in that if the equipment suffers a malfunction, the high level of treatment and disposal of the effluent is retarded. When the electric motor and/or pump malfunction and air is no longer injected into the septic tank to support the more active aerobic treatment bacteria, the system then ceases functioning as an aerobic system and becomes a simple anaerobic system using less effective anaerobic bacteria. In other words, it functions as a normal septic tank and drain-field system. If it has been installed in an area with marginal or deficient natural treatment conditions, such as inappropriate soils, high-water tables, or low surface elevations, beneath the ten-year flood elevation, for instance; the sewage, which is no longer being treated aerobically, can pose a threat to public health and the quality of the ground or surface waters involved at the site. The untreated or inadequately-treated sewage can rise to the surface of the property, back up in the residential toilets, or otherwise pollute ground or surface waters, if water table levels are too high. Thus, such systems would require inspection periodically to insure that they are in adequate working order, because if the mechanical system malfunctions, the system will continue to put effluent through its drain field, like a normal septic tank drain-field system, but without adequate treatment for a "low elevation" site such as this. In that circumstance, the occupants of the dwelling involved might not notice for long periods of time that the system is inoperative because it can continue to dispose of the effluent without it backing up into the residence. Accordingly, when the motor and air pump system becomes inoperative, there is less incentive for the owner to repair it. Thus, it is likely that if such a system were installed, some means would have to be found to insure that the owner keeps the system in good repair and working order. The means by which such an arrangement for insuring that an aerobic system operates properly at all times was not established in this record, however. The Department does not have the regulatory authority at the present time to conduct such periodic inspections nor the personnel or funds to do so. Consequently, the Petitioner failed to establish that reasonable alternatives to the proposed conventional OSDS exist.
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 a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1991, 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 28th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted, but irrelevant. Rejected, as immaterial. Rejected, as immaterial. Rejected, as immaterial and irrelevant. This is not a rule challenge proceeding, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 7-11. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-10. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Richard Remington 165 Forest View Drive Land O'Lakes, FL 34638 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of Respondent's witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Sometime prior to May 7, 1980, Petitioner, Wyatt S. Odom, applied for a permit to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat on Drs Lake in Orange Park, Clay County Florida. By letter dated May 7, 1980, Ronald E. Bray, Sanitarian Supervisor for the Clay County Health Department, advised Petitioner that his permit application to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat was being denied since the area of Petitioner's property was approximately 26,250 square feet2 A survey of the subject property revealed that the area is 19,890 square feet, which is of course less than one-half acre. (Respondent's Exhibit 2) (0.60 acre) with three individual sewage disposal systems already existing on the property; the land was not suitable for the installation that would allow the proper and required drainfield absorption area and setback requirement could not be maintained due to the existence of buildings, waterlines, wells, a lake and existing sewage disposal facilities which, if permitted, would be in contravention of Chapters 10D-6.23(2) and 10D-6.24(2), (3), (4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. Supervisor Bray and Sanitarian Thomas Haley, observed the subject property and the survey, and concluded that based on the size of Petitioner's property and the existing wells and septic tanks thereon, it was unsuitable for and could not satisfy the setback requirements and the required drainfield absorption area. (Testimony of Ronald E. Bray.) As stated, Petitioner did not appear at the hearing to contest the Respondent's denial of his permit application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's denial of Petitioner's request for a permit to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat on Drs. Lake in Orange Park, Florida, be UPHELD. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of September, 1980. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Wyatt S. Odom P. O. Box 14735 Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Leo J. Stellwagen, Esquire Assistant District IV Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to the grant of a variance for the installation of an onsite sewage disposal system ("OSDS") for his property on the Santa Fe River in Gilchrist County, Florida, in accordance with Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of certain real property located in Gilchrist County, Florida, more particularly described as Lot 4, Unit 4, Ira Bea's Oasis, a subdivision. The evidence is not clear concerning whether the plat of the subdivision was actually recorded, although the evidence and the Petitioner's testimony indicates that the lots in the subject subdivision were subdivided in 1965. The evidence does not clearly reflect whether the subdivision was ever platted, however. On April 2, 1990, the Petitioner filed an application for an OSDS permit regarding the subject property. The application was for a new OSDS on the above-described property; and the system was intended to serve a single- family residence, which the Petitioner desires to construct on the subject property for a vacation and retirement home. The proposed residence would contain three bedrooms and a heated or cooled area of approximately 1,100 square feet. In the permit application process, at the Respondent's behest, the Petitioner had a survey performed by Herbert G. Parrish, registered land surveyor. That survey, in evidence as the Respondent's Exhibit 1, reveals a benchmark elevation of 21.65 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The proposed installation site is at an elevation of 22.5 feet above MSL. A report by the Suwannee River Water Management District, which is admitted into evidence and was submitted to the Respondent by the Petitioner with the application for the OSDS permit, shows a ten-year flood elevation for the subject property, and River Mile 10 of the Santa Fe River, at 31 feet above MSL. Thus, the subject property is located beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The property is also located within the regulatory floodway of the Santa Fe River, as that relates to required engineering certification and calculations being furnished which will assure that if OSDS's are constructed employing mounding or sand filters, and like constructions, that such related fill deposited on the property within the regulatory floodway will not raise the level of the "base flood" for purposes of the rules cited hereinbelow. No evidence of such certification by an appropriately-registered engineer was offered in this proceeding concerning the installation of a mounded system and its effect on the base flood level. The surface grade level of the subject property at the installation site is 9.5 feet below the ten-year flood elevation. The grade elevation of the subject property is also .5 feet below the "two-year flood elevation", and the property has been flooded once in the past three years and has been flooded approximately four times in the past 15 years. It has thus not been established in this proceeding that the property is not subject to frequent flooding. On April 18, 1990, the Respondent denied the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit by letter of that date. The Petitioner did not make a timely request for a formal administrative hearing to dispute that denial. The Petitioner maintained at hearing that this was, in essence, because the Respondent's personnel informed him that he should seek a variance instead, which is what he did. The testimony of Mr. Fross reveals, however, that, indeed, he was advised of his opportunity to seek a variance but was also advised of his right to seek a formal administrative hearing to contest the denial of the permit itself. Nevertheless, either through the Petitioner's misunderstanding of his rights or because he simply elected to choose the variance remedy instead, the fact remains that he did not timely file a petition for formal proceeding to contest the denial of the OSDS permit itself. Even had a timely petition for formal proceeding concerning the denial of the OSDS permit application been filed, the evidence of record does not establish the Petitioner's entitlement to such a permit. As found above, the property lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation and, indeed, lies below the two-year flood elevation, which subjects the property to a statistical 50% chance of being flooded each year. This and the other findings referenced above indicate that the property has not been established to be free from frequent flooding; and although appropriate "slight-limited" soils are present at the proposed installation site, those soils only extend 50 inches below the surface grade. That leaves an insufficient space beneath the bottom of the drainfield trenches where they would be located so as to have a sufficient volume and distance of appropriate treatment soil available beneath the drain field, if one should be installed. Below 50 inches at the subject site is a limerock strata which is impervious and constitutes a barrier to appropriate percolation and treatment of effluent waste water. Thus, for these reasons, especially the fact that the property clearly lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation and because adequate proof in support of a mounded system which might raise a septic tank and drainfield system above the ten-year flood elevation has not been adduced, entitlement to the OSDS permit itself has not been established. Concerning the variance application actually at issue in this proceeding, the Petitioner has proposed, in essence, two alternative systems. The Petitioner has designed, and submitted as an exhibit, a plan for a holding- tank-type- system. By this, the Petitioner proposes a 250-gallon holding tank, with a venting pipe extending approximately three feet above the level of the ten-year flood elevation, with an attendant concrete retaining wall and concrete base to which the tank would be securely attached. The Petitioner thus postulates that flood waters would not move or otherwise disturb the holding tank and that he would insure that the holding tank was pumped out at appropriate intervals and the waste there from properly deposited at a treatment facility located above the ten-year flood elevation. The precise method of such disposal and its location was not disclosed in the Petitioner's evidence, however. Moreover, the testimony of Dr. Hunter establishes that the deposition of waste water and human waste into the tank, either through pumping, or by gravity line, if the residence were located at an elevation above the inlet to the tank, might well result in a hydraulic condition which would cause the untreated sewage to overflow from the vent pipe of the tank. Moreover, such systems do not insure that public health, the health of the occupants of the site, and ground or surface waters will not be degraded since it is very costly to pump such a tank out which would have to be done on a frequent basis. This leaves the possibility that the user of such a holding-tank-facility could surreptitiously drain the tank into nearby receiving waters or otherwise improperly empty the tank. Even though the Petitioner may be entirely honorable in his intentions and efforts in this regard and not violate the law and the rules of the above-cited chapter in his manner of disposal of the holding-tank effluent, there is no practical, enforceable safeguard against such illegal activity, especially if one considers that the property may later be conveyed to a different landowner and user of the system. The Petitioner also proposes in his testimony and evidence the possibility of using a nondischarging, composting-toilet-type system to handle sewage involving human excreta. Such a system has been shown by the Petitioner's evidence to adequately treat human sewage so that public health and the ground and surface waters involved in and near the site could be adequately safeguarded. The problem with such a system, however, is that the "gray water", that is, waste water from bathtubs, showers, lavatories and kitchens, cannot be disposed of in the composting-toilet system. Such gray water, which also contains viruses, coliform bacteria and nutrients, must be disposed of, according to the rules at issue, in an appropriate sewage disposal system, be it in a septic tank and drain field or through pumping to an appropriate disposal and treatment facility located above the ten-year flood elevation. The Petitioner's proof does not establish how such gray water could be appropriately and safely disposed of in the environmental and public health context at issue herein. Thus, the proposed alternatives suggested by the Petitioner's proof do not constitute minor deviations from the minimum requirements for OSDS's specified in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. Ironically, the composting-toilet system, coupled with a proper disposal system for household gray water, could constitute a reasonable alternative to a conventional system. Thus, the Petitioner's proof, itself, shows that a reasonable alternative may exist, which militates against the granting of the variance, although he did not prove how it could feasibly be accomplished. In summary, therefore, the Petitioner's proof failed to establish that no reasonable alternative exists and that the proposed system would only be a minor deviation from the minimum requirements of the Respondent's rules concerning OSDS's and their installation and operation. The Petitioner established that a reasonable alternative to a conventional OSDS might exist for purposes of granting an OSDS permit itself, had that issue been formally placed before the Hearing Officer, but did not prove how it could feasibly be accomplished and operated. This proof shows, however, that such a reasonable alternative might be found operable which, thus, fails to justify the granting of a variance based upon hardship. If the Petitioner could come forward with proof to establish the feasibility of disposal and treatment of the household gray water involved in an appropriate treatment and disposal site and facility above the ten-year flood elevation, in conjunction with use of a composting- toilet system, a later permit application might be entertained in which could be justified the granting of an OSDS permit.
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 a Final Order be entered by the Respondent denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the statutory and regulatory requirements, cited above, for the issuance of permits. At such time as the Petitioner is able to show changed factual circumstances, as for instance, that a reasonable, feasible alternative system, which will adequately treat and dispose of all household waste water effluent in a manner comporting with the rules of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, a permit application should be entertained. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1991, 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 27th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-4569 The Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted. 17. Rejected, as not supported by the preponderant evidence of record. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Mark Moneyhan, pro se Route 3, Box 407 Perry, FL 32347 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS District III Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
