Findings Of Fact The subject application requests a permit from the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District for the agricultural irrigation of 640 acres of grass-clover mixture, of which approximately 320 are planted annually to small grains and annual rye grass. The public notice of hearing appearing in The Orlando Sentinel Star, Orlando, Florida, and The Evening Herald, Sanford, Florida, which noticed the permit application submitted on behalf of Robert E. Lee, were received into evidence without objection. (A copy of The Orlando Sentinel Star exhibit, public notice of hearing, is attached to this report, because the original of the exhibit is contained with the report on docket no. 61, application 21423.) Mr. Lee and Mr. Wheeler on behalf of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District stipulated to the introduction of the application and the staff report of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, without objection. It was further stipulated that the matters as contained in the application and staff report could be utilized as a basis for findings of fact and recommended order, without the necessity of putting on testimony in behalf of the applicant or the staff. Pursuant to that stipulation, oral testimony was not presented by the parties. The amount of water requested by the application is 398.9 acre/feet per year. The staff report recommended approval of 398.9 acre/feet per year, as requested by the applicant, based on the applicant's supplemental water use request. Mr. Lee did not offer any further evidence beyond the application and staff report, in support of the request for permit. The recommendation as contained in the staff report prepared by Mr. Nagendra Khanal, Hydrology Division, Resource Planning Department, Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, was that the application #25642 for annual allocation of 398.9 acre/feet per year for purposes as applied for was acceptable. However, Mr. Khanal indicated that the permit should be subject to the following conditions: Recommendation of maximum monthly pumpage not to exceed 180.17 acre/feet or 4.70 inches/month. Pumpage in this amount is subject to availability of surplus water in the basin, consistent with and subject to specific basin rules including minimum flows and levels, all as determined by the District. Existing well and 10 inch deep well turbine pump with an installed capacity of 3,000 gpm be approved. This permit shall expire on October 15, 1978. The applicant shall install a measuring device on the well. Pumpage records shall be submitted to the District at the end of each irrigation season. There were no persons at the hearing who wished to act as intervenors in the capacity of proponents or opponents of the application, nor were there any members of the general public, not party to the proceedings, who wished to comment on the application.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner is entitled to an onsite sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit, whether he is entitled to seek a variance from the permitting requirements in the statutory and regulatory provisions cited below, so as to authorize installation of an OSDS on his property near the Suwannee River, in the Town of Suwannee, in Dixie County, Florida. A related issue concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to seek a variance in view of Executive Order 90-14 issued by Governor Martinez on January 1, 1990, which the Department maintains removes its discretion to consider variance requests for parties who hake been denied permits pursuant to Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. See Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Rules 10D-6.043-047, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, James F. Kazmierski, and his wife, purchased real property in the Town of Suwannee, Florida, in Dixie County, on December 29, 1988. The property is described as Suwannee River Park, Unit 2, Lot 19-1. The subject property is waterfront property located upon a saltwater canal. The property was purchased for a total price of $55,550.00. After the purchase of the property, the applicant invested an additional $30,000.00 in the construction of a sea wall and boathouse, making his total investment approximately $80,000.00. At the time the property was purchased by the applicant, other residential construction was proceeding in the Town of Suwannee and other septic tank and drain-field systems were being installed. Numerous other such systems were already installed and operating in the Town of Suwannee, Florida. In February of 1989, in preparation for construction upon the property, the Petitioner contacted the Dixie County Office of the Department regarding the procedures he would be required to follow in order to install an OSDS. An initial inspection was performed by a representative of the Department, and the Petitioner was informed that an OSDS could be installed on his property. Other than this initial inquiry and initial response from the Department, concerning his ability to secure a septic tank permit and installation of the OSDS on his property, the Petitioner did not submit a formal application for a permit at that time because he planned to construct a sea wall and boathouse on the waterfront-side of the property. Construction operations for this project would have necessitated the use of heavy equipment which could have destroyed or damaged an OSDS system if it were already installed. Due to delays in environmental permitting for that project, the sea wall and boathouse were not completed until February of 1990. After completion of those improvements along the canal front of his property, the applicant again contacted the Dixie County Office of the Department and was informed that he would be required to file an application in order to secure an OSDS permit. The applicant, accordingly, submitted the subject application to the Dixie County Office of the Department on February 20, 1990. After initial submission of that application, he was required to submit additional information in the form of a flood elevation information report from the District describing the ten-year flood elevation at the installation site, as well as securing an elevation survey by a registered land surveyor. This was done; and pursuant to stipulation entered into by the parties, posthearing, the District's ten-year flood elevation information report, as amended, reflects a ten-year flood elevation of 15 feet above MSL. The elevation survey of the property established that the actual surface elevation of the property is 4.68 feet. After submission of the flood elevation report and elevation survey, the Dixie County Office of the Department issued a letter of denial of the permit application because the permit application did not meet the requirements of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, in that the installation site, in the view of the Department, lay beneath the ten-year flood elevation and the bottom surface of the drain fields and absorption beds proposed would lie beneath that elevation. After receipt of that denial letter, the Petitioner, joined by his wife, submitted a letter to the Dixie County Off ice of the Department requesting "a hearing for a variance to obtain a septic tank permit . .". The Petitioner believed that he could avail himself of the Department's informal variance board procedure. The Department, however, advised the Petitioner that he should pursue a formal administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Department advised the Petitioner that an application for a variance from the requirements of Rule 10D- 6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, would not likely be granted because the property, in the view of the Department, was located within the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River and that, pursuant to the Governor's Executive Order 90- 14, that the Department could not entertain or grant any such variance applications or permits for installations which would lie beneath that elevation. The Petitioner purchased the property with the intent to use it for residential purposes and proposes installing the requested OSDS for a private residence. That residence would contain approximately three bedrooms and a heated or cooled area of approximately 2,000 square feet. The property presently has available water service through a central water system for the Town of Suwannee and does not require the installation of a potable water well. Consequently, the lot size requirements contained in the Department's rules related to the installation of an OSDS and to setback distances for such systems from potable water wells, are not applicable or at issue herein. The Petitioner's property has an actual elevation at the grade surface of the installation site of 4.68 feet above MSL. The soils characterizing the proposed installation site are organic type soils down to approximately 18 inches beneath the grade surface and then the soil becomes a sandy loam-type of soil for perhaps two inches and then organic-type soil from 20 inches down to 48 inches. There is evidence of "mottling", which indicates damp soil, at approximately 6 to 10 inches beneath the surface of the property. Mottling coloration in subsurface soil such as this indicates a wet season water table level where the mottling occurs because it is due to moisture. The water table at the time the evaluation of the site was performed, however, was 36 inches below the existing grade level. The Petitioner suggests that mounding an OSDS system for this property might be feasible because it would place the OSDS septic tank and drainfield system in a filled mound of at least 36 inches height above existing grade level. If this could be done, it might be feasible to elevate the bottom surface of the drain field so that the required minimum of 24 inches differential between the bottom surface 0f[ the drain field and the level of the wet season water table could be maintained. This would be environmentally preferable to installing a conventional subterranean septic tank and drain- field system beneath the natural surface of the lot in question in terms of better protecting the ground and surface waters in the vicinity of the site from degradation through improperly treated sewage effluent, if appropriate slight or moderately limited soils were used in the construction of the mound which would contain the system. Thus, as the Department's witness acknowledged, a mounded system is a possible feasible alternative to accommodate the treatment of the sewage to be expected without causing an adverse impact on public health, the health of the users of the property, nor degradation of the ground or surface waters involved. Although a mounded system is a possible alternative, the Petitioner did not adduce sufficient evidence of technical information which-could show that such a system would, indeed, work properly in terms of having a sufficient, unobstructed land surface surrounding the mound in order to comport with the regulatory requirements in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. Although the technical details necessary to show that such a system would correctly operate on the property in question was not adduced into evidence, there is no dispute, however, that the gross lot size is adequate to accommodate such a mounded system. Thus, if appropriate slight or moderately limited soils were used in the construction of the mound and if it would otherwise conform to all the technical requirements of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, which was not shown, and if the ten-year flood elevation obstacle to permitting did not exist, it would seem that a mounded system could be designed and constructed so as to meet the regulatory requirements of Chapter 372, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6. The Petitioner did not suggest, through his testimony or evidence, any other reasonable alternative to a conventional subterranean OSDS. In any event, the proposed installation site was not shown to be above the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River. Because of this, neither a mounded system nor any other type of alternative system has been shown to be capable of being installed at the site and comporting with the rules contained in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, particularly, Rule 10D-6.047(6). That is, with either the conventional or mounded system in mind, it has not been demonstrated that the bottom of the drainfield trenches or absorption beds at issue, as envisioned in this rule, would be above the ten-year flood elevation. A report prepared by the District and submitted by the applicant with his application, as amended by posthearing stipulation, establishes a reported ten-year flood elevation of 15 feet above MSL. The Petitioner adduced the testimony of Williams Pierce, an engineer with the District, in their case in chief. His testimony in the Silcox case (DOAH Case No. 90-2660) was stipulated into the record in the instant Mr. Pierce testified that the elevation in the District report (now 15 feet) is the elevation shown in the data contained in the computer model generated and maintained by the District. The information by which this computer model was designed, and which resulted in the 15-foot elevation comes from the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers' data, along with data from the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"), the Hydraulic Engineering Center in Davis, California, the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The storm surge component of that ten-year flood elevation came from data generated by a privately-contracted study prepared for the federal agencies and supplied to the District. Through the testimony of Mr. Pierce, the Petitioner established substantial doubt as to the accuracy of the 15-foot ten-year flood elevation. Mr. Pierce established that the ten-year flood elevation figure for the Suwannee River decreases as it is measured many miles upstream from the Town of Suwannee, when measurement proceeds in a downstream direction. Thus, for instance, the ten-year flood elevation at the Town of White Springs, at river mile 177, upstream from the coast is approximately 81 feet. The ten-year flood elevation at the location known as "Wilcox", some 33 miles above the confluence of the Suwannee River with the Gulf of Mexico, is approximately 16 feet. This decreasing ten-year flood elevation figure, as progressively measured downstream toward the coast, is a natural incident to the fact that the elevation of the land surrounding the Suwannee River declines in elevation above sea level as the land elevation is measured going in a downstream or coastward direction. That is, as the surrounding upland elevation declines, the waters of the Suwannee River, in a flood event, can spread outward from its channel over a wider area, due to being less confined by higher upland elevations, which results in the flood elevations being lower. Thus one would logically expect that if the ten- year flood elevation at Wilcox, 33 miles upstream, is 16 feet above MSL, the flood elevation at the Town of Suwannee, where the property in question lies, would be substantially lower. However, in the District's flood elevation data, the element of `1storm surge" is additively calculated in the ten-year flood elevation figure. This is designed to take into account surges caused by storms pushing water inland on the coast where the Suwannee River makes its confluence with the Gulf of Mexico. According to the District's data and Mr. Pierce's testimony, this would effectively raise tide actual ten- year river flood stage elevation level. The problem with the 15-foot, ten-year flood elevation figure is that Mr. Pierce was unable, in his testimony, to show how and why the storm surge closely correlates with the river flood stage to produce a 15- foot, ten- year flood elevation at the location of the Petitioner's property near the mouth of the river. Moreover, he was unable to establish in his testimony how tee District's flood elevation calculations and figures take into account any probability of the storm surge occurring simultaneously with the ten-year flood event for the Suwannee River or what that probability might be. Thus, the Petitioner's evidence casts substantial doubt that the 15-foot, ten-year flood elevation figure is accurate and comports with logic. Therefore, it can be found herein that the 15-foot, ten-year flood elevation figure has not been proven to be accurate. The problem remains, however, that the Petitioner must establish that the installation site in question does not occur beneath the ten- year flood elevation of the Suwannee River. The Petitioner adduced no evidence to establish what the ten-year flood elevation might actually be nor that the installation site lies above it. Consequently, sufficient proof has not been established to comport with the requirement that the bottom surface of the drain field trenches or absorption beds lies above the ten-year flood elevation, so as to show that the installation site is not subject to inundation. The Petitioner did not formally apply for a variance from the permitting statute and rules, upon having the permit application initially denied by the Department. This is because the Department advised the Petitioner, in effect, that it would be futile to apply for a variance and to avail himself of the Department's informal variance procedure because of the effect of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, entered on January 17, 1990. That Executive Order incorporated Recommendation No. 36 of the "Suwannee River Task Force" report, which recommended that all OSDS installations lying beneath the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River be prohibited and that the grant of any permits for OSDS installations be down in strict compliance with pertinent permitting statutes and rules. According to the Department, the Executive Order, in effect, directed that all OSDS's beneath the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River be prohibited. The Department, thus, takes the position that the entry of the Executive Order took away its discretion to entertain any variance applications for properties lying beneath the ten-year flood elevation and. advised the Petitioner to avail himself of a formal hearing procedure before the Division of Administrative Hearings rather than seek a variance through the Department's own internal variance procedure. In any event, and somewhat parenthetically, it should be pointed out that although the Petitioner will definitely experience a hardship if a permit or variance is not granted, because of the money expended to purchase and develop the lot, which will be largely unusable without the ability to establish a residence thereon by installing an OSDS system, it has not been proven that no reasonable alternatives exist to the installation of a conventional OSDS subterranean-type system on the property. The Petitioner proposed installation of a mounded system which has some promise as a reasonable alternative system (although sufficient evidence was not adduced to establish that such a system would adequately treat and dispose of the effluent in question without causing a public health hazard or degradation of ground and surface waters, as discussed above). Nor was sufficient evidence adduced of a lack of adverse environmental effects, in this regard, as to establish any other type of reasonable alternative approach to treatment and disposal of the expected sewage effluent. Thus, one element of the variance criteria cited below has not been met. A mounded system, with adequate proof, might be established as a reasonable alternative. It has neither been established that the installation of an OSDS system of the conventional subterranean type, nor any other type, would not have an adverse impact on public health or would not cause degradation of the ground or surface waters involved. Thus, to the extent the question of entitlement to a variance can be entertained in this proceeding, the elements required for the grant of a variance have not been established by Petitioner's proof.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying the application of the Petitioner for an OSDS permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3338 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-15. Accepted. 16. Rejected, as irrelevant, since this is not a rule challenge proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56 Florida Statutes. 17-29. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. 7-13. Accepted. 14. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Moeller, Esq. P.O. Drawer 1419 Cross City, FL 32628 Frances Childers, Esq. HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 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
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the permits requested and the right-of-way permit be issued in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the Staff Report (attached hereto), as amended at the hearing of this cause, which amendments are discussed in the Findings of Fact herein. Respectfully submitted this 7th day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Walker, Esquire Attorney for the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District P.O. Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Mr. John Moose General Manager of Ascot Groves, Inc. P.O. Box 576 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the application for a surface water management permit (permit no. 4-009-0077AM) filed by the Respondent, David A. Smith (Applicant), should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the prehearing stipulations of the parties, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Applicant is the owner of the subject property. The Applicant filed an application for a permit to construct a stormwater management system which was proposed to serve a residential and golf course development to be known as Sabal Hammocks. The site of the proposed project is approximately 720 acres in size and is located in township 24 south, sections 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 34, range 35 east, Brevard County, Florida. The entire project site for the Sabal Hammocks development is located within the boundaries of the St. Johns River Water Management District. To the west of the project site is an 140 acre public park that treats its own stormwater and releases pre-treated stormwater during some storm events into the canals on the Sabal Hammocks site. The Applicant's site is located adjacent to Lake Poinsett and prior uses of the land have included cattle grazing and the cultivation of rye and oats. The Applicant filed his application for the stormwater management permit (permit NO. 4-009-0077AM) on December 22, 1989. That application was deemed complete by the District on June 19, 1990. The District issued a notice of its intended action to approve the permit application on June 28, 1990. Save timely filed a petition challenging the proposed action. By law the District is the appropriate agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing applications for stormwater management permits within the subject area. Save is an association of individual persons and representatives from groups who utilize the waters of Lake Poinsett and its surrounding areas for recreational and business purposes. The receiving waters for stormwater discharge from the proposed Sabal Hammocks development will be Lake Poinsett. That water body is classified as Class III waters. Currently, a dike system exists along the southern boundary of the subject property. That dike system separates the internal grazing lands of the parcel from the lower marsh and flooded areas external to the dike. A series of ditches cross the parcel to drain the interior areas. Two agricultural discharge pumps are currently in use at the site. The operation of those pumps has been authorized pursuant to a consent order approved by the District's governing board on December 13, 1990. The dike system on the subject site has been in place since the 1970s. The original construction specifications of the dike are unknown. Sometime in the 1980s, several openings or breaches were cut in the dike system. Those breaches were opened pursuant to permits issued by the District and the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) . The breaches were cut to a sufficient width and depth to allow boats to navigate through to interior areas of the subject property during those times when the water levels outside the dike would allow such entrance. The breaches were not cut to ground level and the original dike remained intact and uncompromised by the breaches. That is, the dike has not failed to impede water movement and the integrity of the dike was not weakened by the breaches. The original outline, dimension of the dike, remained visible despite the breaches. In 1986, the Applicant requested permission from the District staff in order to close or restore the dike breaches. At that time, the District staff advised David Smith that a permit would not be required to restore the dike since such improvements would be considered a maintenance exemption. Subsequently, and in reliance upon the representations made by the District's director,, the Applicant closed the breaches and restored the continuity of the dike system of the subject property. The Applicant's work to close the breaches was performed in an open manner, would have been visible to persons using the adjacent marsh or water areas for recreational purposes, and was completed at least one year prior to the application being filed in this case. Neither the District nor DER has asserted that the work to complete the original dike in the 1970s, nor the breaches completed in the 1980s, nor the restoration of the breaches in 1986 was performed in violation of law. Further, the District had knowledge of the subject activities. Save contends that the restoration of the dike system was contrary to law and that it was not afforded a point of entry to contest the closure of the breaches. Additionally, Save infers that the original construction of the dike system in the early 1970s was without authorization from authorities. Save's contention is that the prior condition of the property, ie. the parcel with breached openings, must be considered the correct pre- development condition of the land. The District, however, considered the pre- development condition of the parcel to be that of a diked impoundment separated from Lake Poinsett. The same assumption was made regarding the pumping of water from the area enclosed by the dike via an existing 36 inch pump which discharges to Bass Lake (and then to Lake Poinsett) and an existing 12 inch pump that discharges into the marsh areas adjacent to the property (between it and Lake Poinsett). The District's consideration of the site and the application at issue was based upon the actual condition of the land as it existed at the time this application was filed. The pre-development peak rate and volume of discharge from the site was calculated based upon the maximum discharge capacity of the two existing pumps (described above). Accordingly, the maximum pre-development rate of discharge from the two existing pumps is in the range of 90-107 cubic feet per second. The pre-development volume of discharge, based upon actual pump records, was calculated as 710 acre-feet for a 25 year, 96 hour storm event. The total areas encompassed by the Applicant's proposal are the 720 acre site where the golf course and residential homes will be located together with 140 acres from an adjacent public park. The runoff entering the stormwater system from that public park will have already been treated in its own stormwater management system. The Applicant's proposed stormwater system will consist of a series of lakes and interconnected swales. This wet detention system will capture the runoff and direct its flow through the series of swales and lakes via culverts. The waters will move laterally from the northwestern portion of the parcel to she southeastern end of the site. From the final collecting pond, she waters will be pumped to Bass Lake and ultimately flow to Lake Poinsett. Wet detention systems generally provide greater pollutant treatment efficiencies than other types of stormwater treatment systems. The maintenance associated with these systems is also considered less intensive than other types of treatment systems. The wet detention system proposed for Sabal Hammocks accomplishes three objectives related to the flow of stormwater. The first objective, the collection of the. stormwater, requires the creation of several lakes or pools into which water is directed and accumulates. The size and dimension of the lakes will allow the volume of accumulated water to be sufficient to allow stormwater treatment. The capacity of the lakes will also provide for a sufficient volume to give adequate flood protection during rainfall events and storms. The second objective, the treatment of the stormwater, requires the creation of a littoral zone within the system. The littoral zone, an area of rooted aquatic plants within the lakes or ponds, provide for the natural removal of nutrients flowing into the system. The plants serve as a filtering system whereby some nutrients are processed. The proposed littoral zone in this project constitutes approximately 37 percent of the detention system surface area and therefore exceeds District size requirements. The depth of the treatment volume for the proposed system will not exceed 18 inches. A third objective accomplished by the creation of the series of lakes is the provision for an area where pollutants flowing into the detention system may settle and through sedimentation be removed from the water moving through the system. The average residence time estimated for runoff entering the Sabal Hammocks detention system is 48 days. The permanent pool volume will, therefore, be sufficient to assure the proposed project exceeds the District's requirements related to residence time. The design and volume of the Sabal Hammocks system will also exceed the District's requirements related to the dynamic pool volumes. In this case the Sabal Hammocks system will provide for approximately 65 acre-feet of runoff. Thus, the proposed system will adequately control and detain the first 1 inch of runoff from the site. The length to width ratio for the proposed lakes, 18:1, exceeds the District's minimum criteria (2:1). The final lake or pond into which the stormwater will flow will be 17 acres and will have 15 acres of planted wetland vegetation. Before waters will be released into Bass Lake, the site's runoff will pass through 3100 linear feet of this final lake before being discharged. The proposed project will eliminate the two agricultural pumps and replace them with one pump station. That station will contain four pumps with a total pumping capacity of 96 cubic feet per second. Under anticipated peak times, the rate of discharge from the proposed single station is estimated to be less than the calculated peak pre-development rate of discharge (90-107 c.f.s.). The estimated peak volume of discharge will also be lower than the pre-development discharge volumes for the comparable storm events. The proposed pump station is designed to be operated on electrical power but will have a backup diesel generator to serve in the event of the interruption of electrical service. Additionally, the pumps within the station will be controlled by a switching device that will activate the pump(s) only at designated times. It is unlikely that all four pumps will activate during normal rainfall events. The Applicant intends to relinquish maintenance responsibilities for the stormwater system including the pump station to Brevard County, Florida. Finished floor elevations for all residential structures to be built within the Sabal Hammocks development will be at a minimum of 18.2 mean sea level. This level is above that for a 100 year flood. The floor elevations will be at least one foot above the 100 year flood elevation even in the event of the dike or pump failure or both. Finished road elevations for the project will be set at 17.5 feet mean sea level. This elevation meets or exceeds the County's requirements regarding the construction of roadways. It is estimated that the Sabal Hammocks system will retain at least 26 percent of all storm events on site. If the lake system is utilized to irrigate the golf course the proposed system could retain 45 percent of all storm events on site. Of the 31.27 acres of wetlands within the proposed site, only 4.73 acres of wetlands will be disturbed by the construction of this project. Some of the wetlands are isolated and presently provide minimal benefits to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species. No threatened or endangered species are currently utilizing the isolated wetlands. The areas of wetlands which are productive and which will be disturbed by the development will be replaced by new wetlands to be created adjacent to their current location at a lower elevation. The new wetlands should provide improved wetland function since those areas will be planted with a greater diversity of wetland plant species. Additionally, other wetland areas will be enhanced by the removal of invader species and increased hydroperiod in the area. The integrated pesticide management plan for the proposed project will be sufficient with the additional condition chat use of Orthene, Subdue, and Tersan LSR will be authorized when approved insecticides or fungicides have not been effective. In this case, the estimates regarding the water quality for the proposed project were based upon data from studies of multifamily residential projects. Data from single family/ golf course developments was not available. Therefore, based upon the data used, the projected runoff concentrations for this project should over estimate pollutants and are more challenging to the treatment system than what is reasonably expected to occur. In this regard, the overall treatment efficiencies are estimated to be good for all of the parameters of concern with the exception of nitrogen. The projected increase in nitrogen, however, will not adversely impact the receiving water body. The projected average concentration for each constituent which may be discharged is less than the state standard with the exceptions of cadmium and zinc. In this regard, the District's proposed conditions (set forth in the District's exhibits 4 and 9) adequately offset the potential for a violation of state water quality standards. More specifically, the use of copper-based algaecides in the stormwater management system should be prohibited; the use of galvanized metal culverts in the stormwater management system, or as driveway culverts, should be prohibited; and the use of organic fertilizers or soil amendments derived from municipal sludge on the golf course should be prohibited. Additionally, a water quality monitoring plan should be implemented by the Applicant. The monitoring plan mandates the collection of water samples from areas in order to adequately monitor the overall effectiveness of the treatment facility. The source of cadmium is not be expected to be as great as projected since the most common source for such discharge is automobiles. It is unlikely that the golf course use will generate the volume of discharge associated with automobile use that the multifamily data presumed. The projected quality of the discharges from this project should be similar to the ambient water quality in Lake Poinsett. In fact, the post- development pollutant loading rates should be better than the pre-development pollutant loading rates. The discharge from the proposed Sabal Hammocks project will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards in Lake Poinsett nor will the groundwater discharges violate applicable state groundwater quality standards. The floodways and floodplains, and the levels of flood flows or velocities of adjacent water courses will not be altered by the proposed project so as to adversely impact the off- site storage and conveyance capabilities of the water resource. The proposed project will not result in the flow of adjacent water courses to be decreased to cause adverse impacts. The proposed project will not cause hydrologically-related environmental functions to be adversely impacted The proposed project will not endanger life, health, or property. The proposed project will not adversely affect natural resources, fish and wildlife. The proposed project is consistent with the overall objectives of the District.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the governing board of the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order approving the application for permit number 4-009-0077AM with the conditions outlined within the District's exhibits numbered 4, 8, and 9 and as previously stated in the notice of intent. DONE and ENTERED this 2 day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2 day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-5247 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 7 is accepted the remainder is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraphs 9 through 11 are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. 8 Paragraphs 13 through 21 are accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 23 through 25 are accepted. The last two sentences of paragraph 26 are accepted, the remainder is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 27 is accepted. Paragraph 28 is rejected as comment, irrelevant, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Paragraph 29 is accepted. Paragraph 30 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 31 is rejected as argumentative. Paragraphs 32 and 33 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 34 it is accepted that compensating storage was not required. Otherwise, unnecessary, irrelevant, or comment. With regard to paragraph 35, it is accepted the proposed system meets the first 1 inch of runoff requirement otherwise, unnecessary or irrelevant or comment. Paragraph 36 is accepted. Paragraphs 37 through 41 are rejected as irrelevant, argumentative or comment. Paragraphs 42 and 43 are accepted. With the deletion of the last sentence which is irrelevant, paragraph 44 is accepted. Paragraphs 44 through 49 are accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 50 is accepted, the remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 51 is accepted, the remainder is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 52 through 56 are rejected as irrelevant, comment, or recitation of testimony. Paragraph 57 is accepted. Paragraph 58 is accepted. Paragraphs 59 and 60 are rejected as irrelevant, comment, or argumentative. Paragraphs 61 and 62 are accepted. The first sentence of Paragraph 63 is accepted. The remainder of the Paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The proposed project will benefit the wetland areas in an unquanitifiable measure due to the enhancements to prior wetlands and the creation of new wetlands. The first sentence of paragraph 64 is accepted. The remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 65 is accepted. Paragraph 66 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 67 is accepted. Paragraphs 68 and 69 are accepted. Paragraph 70 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 71 through 73 are accepted. Paragraph 74 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary. Paragraphs 75 through 78 are rejected as argument, irrelevant, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Paragraphs 79 through 82 are accepted. Paragraph 83 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 84 and 85 are rejected as argument or comment. It is accepted that the Corp and DER are aware of the restoration of the dike and that neither has asserted such work was performed contrary to law. Paragraph 86 is rejected as comment on the evidence or irrelevant. It is accepted that the District advised Applicant that he could restore the dike system and that the District was apprised of the completion of that work. With regard to paragraph 87, it is accepted that the restoration of the dike entailed filling the breaches to conform to the dike's original design; otherwise, rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 88 and 89 and the first sentence of Paragraph 90 are accepted. The remainder of paragraph 90 and Paragraphs 91 through 93 are rejected as irrelevant, argument, or comment. Paragraph 94 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT: Paragraphs 1 through 78 is accepted. Paragraph 79 is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 80 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY SAVE: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary D. Hansen 1600 S. Clyde Morris Boulevard Suite 300 Daytona Beach, Florida 32119 Brain D.E. Canter HABEN, CULPEPPER, DUNBAR & FRENCH, P.A. 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wayne Flowers Jennifer Burdick St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178
The Issue The issue is whether an Environmental Resource Permit should be issued to Luther E. Blake, Jr. and Irene Blake Caudle authorizing the construction of a stormwater management system to serve a single-family development known as Walnut Creek, Phases I and II, in Gainesville, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this environmental permitting dispute, Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), proposes to issue an Environmental Resource Permit to Respondents, Luther E. Blake, Jr. and Irene Blake Caudle (Applicants), authorizing the construction of a stormwater management system to serve Phases I and II of a single-family development known as Walnut Creek Subdivision in Gainesville, Florida. The system will be located on a 31-acre, L-shaped parcel of undeveloped, forested land. The proposed system includes a 135-lot single family subdivision, internal roadways with curb and gutter, a storm sewer system, and five dry retention ponds. The project site is located west of Northwest 13th Street (Highway 441) in the northwestern portion of the City of Gainesville between Northwest 39th Avenue (State Road 222) and Northwest 31st Boulevard, west of Palm Grove Subdivision, and east of Hidden Pines Subdivision. Petitioner, Glen Springs Preservation Association, Inc. (Association), is a corporation made up of an undisclosed number of persons, at least one of whom resides adjacent to or near the proposed project site. Petitioner, Elizabeth T. Furlow (Furlow), who did not indicate that she is a member, also resides with her husband near the project site. As set forth in the parties' Prehearing Stipulation, Petitioners contend that the proposed system fails to meet certain design and performance criteria, that the Applicants have failed to submit the appropriate documentation to satisfy the operation and maintenance entity requirements, and that the Applicants have failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system meets the general requirements for issuance of a permit. More specifically, they contend that the requirements of Rules 40C-42.023(1)(a)-(c), 40C-42.025(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (10), 40C-42.026(1)(a), (c), and (d), and 40C- 42.027, Florida Administrative Code, have not been met.2 On these technical issues, the parties have presented conflicting expert testimony, and the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony, as set forth in the findings below. Respondents have not stipulated to Petitioners' standing. Through the testimony of Furlow's husband, it was established that the Furlows live just south of the project site, approximately 100 yards north of Northwest 31st Boulevard near a creek known as Glen Springs Creek (Creek). The Furlows fear that if a permit is issued, runoff from the project site will cause further erosion of the Creek's banks and flooding during rainfall events. Although three persons who live adjacent to or near the project site appeared as witnesses, only one (Bonnie O'Brien) indicated that she is a member of the Association. Ms. O'Brien has lived just west of the Creek since 1969, around one-half mile from the project site. Over the years, and due to erosion caused by increasing development in the area, much of which began before the District began permitting stormwater systems, the Creek's banks have increased in depth from around a foot or so to as much as six feet. During large storm events, the Creek's waters rise up to as much as five feet in depth. Like the Furlows, Ms. O'Brien fears that runoff from the project will go into the Creek and adversely affect her property. There was, however, no evidence concerning the Association's interests, whether the Association is a Florida corporation, the number of members in the Association, and except for Ms. O'Brien, whether any of its members are substantially affected by the proposed activity.3 Design and performance criteria The Applicants propose to use a dry retention system consisting of five dry retention ponds ranging in depth from three to four and one-quarter feet which will be located mainly along the western boundaries of the project site. In general terms, stormwater runoff from the residential lots will sheet flow to roadways and alleys, will be collected by curbs and gutters, and then will be conveyed to the five ponds for water quality treatment. Rule 40C-42.025(1) requires that "[e]rosion and sediment control best management practices shall be used as necessary during construction to retain sediment on-site." The more persuasive evidence shows that the applicants have done so, and that the best management practices used by the Applicants are generally utilized throughout the development community. Therefore, the requirements of this rule have been met. Rule 40C-42.025(3) provides that unless applicable local regulations are more restrictive, "[n]ormally dry basins designed to impound more than two feet of water or permanently wet basins shall be fenced or otherwise restricted from public access." The proposed retention basins that have three-to-one (horizontal: vertical) side slopes will be fenced to prevent public access. The evidence also shows that there are no applicable, more restrictive local regulations. Under Rule 40C-42.025(4), "[a]ll stormwater basin side slopes shall be stabilized by either vegetation or other materials to minimize erosion and sedimentation of the basins." As to this requirement, the evidence establishes that all of the stormwater basin side slopes will be stabilized by vegetation to minimize erosion and sedimentation of the basins, as required by the rule. Further, the proposed retention basin side slopes are four-to-one and three-to-one. Slopes of this dimension are typically stable and will not easily erode. Rule 40C-42.025(5) requires that the systems be designed so that they "accommodate maintenance equipment access" and "facilitate regular operational maintenance." The evidence shows that the Applicants own the entire project site, and each of the five retention ponds can be accessed from roads and alleys within the project site. Rule 40C-42.025(6) requires that an applicant "obtain sufficient legal authorization as appropriate prior to permit issuance for stormwater management systems which propose to utilize offsite areas to satisfy the requirement in subsection 40C-42.023(1), F.A.C." Because the Applicants are not proposing to use any offsite areas for the system, and the system is located entirely on the project site, no "legal authorization" from other persons is required. Under Rule 40C-42.025(7), the system "shall provide gravity or pumped discharge that effectively operates under . . . [m]aximum stage in the receiving water resulting from the mean annual 24-hour storm." Calculations performed by the Applicants, and verified by the District's independent calculations, show that the system is designed to retain all of the runoff from the mean annual 24-hour storm event. Therefore, this rule has been satisfied. Rule 40C-42.025(8) provides that if a system serves a new construction area with greater than 50 percent impervious surface, an applicant is required to demonstrate that "post- development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the pre- development peak rate of discharge" for the mean annual 24-hour storm event. If the system serves a new construction area with less than 50 percent impervious surface, however, the requirements of this rule do not apply. The evidence shows that the proposed retention system will serve a new construction area (around 12 acres) with less than 50 percent impervious area. Therefore, the rule does not apply. Even so, the Applicants demonstrated that the post- development peak rate of discharge from the project site will not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge for the 24-hour storm event. In fact, the post-development peak rate of discharge from the project site during the 24-hour mean annual storm event will be zero. Finally, Rule 40C-42.025(10) requires in part that the construction plans and supporting calculations be "signed, sealed, and dated by an appropriate registered professional." The evidence shows that the final set of plans submitted in January 2002 by the Applicants was signed and sealed by H. Jerome Kelly, a professional engineer.4 Specific design and performance criteria Rule 40C-40.026(1)(a) requires that the retention system provide retention of stormwater runoff in one of four ways. Here, the Applicants have designed the system to provide "[o]n-line retention of an additional one half inch of runoff from the drainage area over the volume specified in subparagraph 1. above." Subparagraph 1. requires "[o]ff-line retention of the first one half of runoff or 1.25 inches of runoff from the impervious area, whichever is greater[.]" Because the system will provide on-line retention of a minimum of one inch of runoff from the project area, plus 1.25 inches of runoff from the impervious soil in the project/drainage area, it is found that the capacity of the proposed retention system is more than adequate to capture the quantity of stormwater runoff required by this rule. Under Rule 40C-42.026(1)(c), the system must be designed to "[p]rovide the capacity for the appropriate treatment volume of stormwater specified in paragraphs (a) and (c) above, within 72 hours following the storm event assuming average antecedent moisture conditions." To assure compliance with this rule, and to demonstrate that the system meets the required recovery of the water quality treatment volume, the District performed modeling to predict the vertical infiltration rate and the groundwater mounding effects of the proposed retention system. For the reasons stated below, it is found that the system will provide the required amount of treatment volume capacity within 72 hours of a storm event assuming average antecedent moisture conditions, as required by the rule. The District used one of the latest versions of the MODRET computer modeling program, a methodology routinely used by the District to support an application for this type of retention system. That program takes into account vertical percolation into the soil; once the water reaches the water table, the model then takes into account the lateral or horizontal movement of the water out of the pond. The model is used to determine whether the required water quality treatment volume, which is significantly less than the storage volume in the ponds, will draw down within three days. The modeling confirmed that this requirement will be satisfied. Data from the Applicants' on-site soil survey was used in the model to establish the depth below ground surface of the seasonal high water table level. This resulted in a conservative assumption of an above-normal average antecedent moisture condition beneath the retention ponds. The Applicants also collected soil samples from the project site, including those areas where the retention ponds will be located, and they performed laboratory tests in accordance with ASTM D2434 to calculate the vertical hydraulic conductivity and the horizontal hydraulic conductivity for those soils. The results of both tests fall within accepted ranges as stated in the published soils texts and governmental soils surveys for the project area. In addition, the Applicants conducted an independent test to determine the mean seasonal high water table on the project site. Based on visual observations of the soil samples, the Applicants determined that the mean seasonal high water table is between six and seven feet below ground surface. The visual observation of the soil samples is compatible with the results of Petitioners' soil augers obtained off the project site. As noted earlier, the proposed retention ponds will have a depth of three to four and one-quarter feet, which places the bottom of the ponds above the mean high water table as determined by the Applicants' calculations and as stated in the soils survey for Alachua County. Therefore, the dry retention ponds should not be considered impervious surfaces. Finally, Rule 40C-42.026(1)(d) requires that the retention system "[b]e stabilized with pervious material or permanent vegetation cover." The evidence shows that the proposed retention system will be stabilized with permanent vegetative cover. Other requirements and concerns Runoff from other developed properties in the vicinity of the proposed project site discharges into the Creek, contributing to erosion in the Creek. Not all of these existing developments have stormwater management systems on-site, since some of the older properties were built before the District assumed regulation over this activity. The proposed system can be effectively operated and maintained without causing or exacerbating the erosion problems that currently exist within the Creek system. This is because once the system is built, the amount of runoff leaving the site will be less than what is now present in the pre-development state. Thus, the project, as now designed, will not adversely affect drainage and flood protection on adjacent or nearby properties. Through the submission of a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and Declaration of Covenants for the Walnut Creek Homeowner's Association, the Applicants demonstrated that the District's requirements regarding the operation and maintenance of the proposed system after completion of construction will be met, as required by Rule 40C-42.027(4).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order granting application number 42-001- 71000-1 of Luther E. Blake, Jr. and Irene Blake Caudle for an Environmental Resource Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2002.
The Issue Whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District should issue the Individual Environmental Resource Permit (the "Individual ERP," the "ERP" or the "Permit") applied for by Entryway Developers, LLC ("Entryway")? The ERP was preliminarily issued by the District as Draft Permit No. 43024788.000 (the "Draft Permit"). If it becomes final, it will allow Entryway's successor in interest, Westfield Homes of Florida ("Westfield") both to construct a new surface water management system in service of a proposed subdivision, known as Ashley Glen, in southern Pasco County, and to conduct dredge and fill activities on site.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Petitioner in this proceeding is Dr. Octavio Blanco. A veterinarian, citizen of Florida and a resident of Pasco County, he holds a property interest (described below) in property immediately adjacent to Ashley Glen. One of the three Co-Respondents, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (the "District" or "SWFWMD") is a public entity created by Chapter 61-691, Laws of Florida. It exists and operates under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (the "Florida Water Resources Act of 1972" or the "Act"). The District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage and control the water resources within its geographic boundaries. It does so through administration and enforcement of the Act and the rules promulgated to implement the Act in Chapter 40D, Florida Administrative Code. Entryway, the second of the three Co-Respondents, is a limited liability company and the original applicant for the Permit. Westfield, the third of the Co-Respondents, is a Florida general partnership and the current owner of the Ashley Glen Project. If the Permit is issued by way of a final order, Westfield will be the permit-holder. An application for an Individual ERP must be signed by the owner of the property or the owner's authorized agent. If signed by an agent, a letter of authority must be submitted by the owner. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.101(2). Westfield was not the owner of the property on the site of the Project at the time of the filing of the application. Entryway was the owner. Westfield filed with DOAH a letter of authority received from Entryway.2 The letter authorized Westfield to sign the Individual ERP application. Ashley Glen and the Blanco Property "Ashley Glen-Villages 2-5" ("Ashley Glen" or as it is referred to in the Draft Permit, the "Project") is a 266.36-acre residential subdivision planned to be divided into more than 400 lots. Located in southern Pasco County, the subdivision is on the north side of State Road 54, approximately three miles west of US 41 and less than 1000 feet east of the Suncoast Parkway. To the north, Ashley Glen is bounded along an abandoned railroad right-of-way. The right-of-way extends beyond the northwest and northeast corners of the property in both easterly and westerly directions. There are 72.69 acres of surface waters and wetlands on the Ashley Glen site. Among the 19 isolated and contiguous wetlands on the property is a portion of a Cypress-forested wetland system (the "Cypress-forested Wetland"). The Cypress-forested Wetland was described at hearing by one of Westfield's experts as "a large wetland" (tr. 41) that is typical of the area. As with similar wetland systems throughout the state, the Cypress-forested Wetland undergoes "seasonal drawdowns and dry-outs, and in the wet season . . . flood[s] out to the edges and even beyond in certain storm events." (Tr. 43). The portion of the Cypress-forested Wetland that is on the Ashley Glen site is identified by the Permit as "Wetland A3." Wetland A3 is 29.94 acres. The entire Cypress-forested Wetland system south of the railroad bed of which Wetland A3 is a part is at least twice as large. Most of the remainder of the Cypress Wetland south of the railroad right-of-way is on the Blanco Property. It appears from exhibits used during the hearing that the Cypress Wetland originally extended north of where the railroad right-of-way now lies in its abandoned state. The connection was indicated also in the testimony of Mr. Courtney (Westfield's "wetlands" and "ERP" expert3) when he stated that there was potential for contiguity with systems to the north. Aerial photographs used at hearing indicated that the Cypress- forested wetland system was, indeed, part of the contiguous wetland system to the north of the railroad bed. The contiguity between the Cypress-forested Wetland and the system to the north was confirmed by Dr. Baca, Petitioner's wetland ecologist, on the basis of on-site examinations. Dr. Baca believes the Cypress-forested Wetland to be part of a much larger system that extends northward and to the west and that is contiguous with the Gulf of Mexico. He determined that despite the establishment of the railroad bed, the Cypress-forested Wetland remains connected to the contiguous wetland system to the north by way of pipes under and through the bed. Drainage on the Ashley Glen site is primarily from south to north with significant contribution from a drainage basin to the east. Drainage from the south is channelized by a ditch that runs nearly the length of the property from Wetland C12 at the southeastern tip to Wetland A3 near the site's northern boundary. Drainage from the eastern basin toward Wetland A3 is intercepted by the ditch. The result is that the drainage from the east is captured before it reaches Wetland A3 and drainage from the south bypasses Wetland A3 to be discharged northward at the railroad bed so that all of the drainage is "short-circuited by [the] ditch to the actual discharge location of [Wetland] A3." (Tr. 41). The discharge location from Wetland A3 was more precisely described at hearing by Mr. Courtney as "the confluence of [Wetland] A3 and the railroad bed where [the ditch] discharges off-site flows and [the] easterly to westerly flows into pipes that go under [the] old railroad bed " (Tr. 40-41). This testimony supports Dr. Baca's confirmation of the connection between the Cypress-forested Wetland and the contiguous wetland system north of the railroad bed. To the west of the ditch and the Ashley Glen site is the Blanco property. It has been held by Dr. Blanco's family for a period spanning six decades. Its boundaries roughly form an elongated narrow rectangle. From the eastern and western ends of 400 feet of frontage on State Road 54 (the southern boundary of the Blanco Property) the eastern and western boundaries run parallel of each other approximately 8000 feet to the north where the northernmost boundary of the Blanco Property meets the abandoned railroad right-of-way. The majority of the northern half of the Blanco Property is in the Cypress-forested Wetland. In addition to the drainage from the south and the east received prior to the digging of the ditch, the wetland receives drainage from the west which traverses the property between the Blanco Property and the Suncoast Parkway. With the exception of one acre on which sits the house in which Dr. Blanco's mother lives, the Blanco Property is presently the subject of a Land Trust Agreement. Through this unrecorded instrument, dated December 19, 1996, Dr. Blanco has an ownership interest in the property. Dr. Blanco's concern for the property pre-dates his ownership interest conferred by the trust agreement. He lived on the property from the age of three until he left for college. During that time, he "constantly" (tr. 374) observed many species of wildlife in the Cypress-forested Wetland, as he explained at hearing: Starting with mammals, I observed many deer, foxes, coons, coyotes, squirrels, ground squirrels, fox squirrels. And then numerous bird species . . . from the sandhill cranes to various storks and herons and egrets and . . . [m]ostly aquatic birds . . . many hawks [and] an occasional eagle [as well]. A lot of animals, such as frogs and snails. The apple snails particularly I've noticed. I've always admired them and the way they lay their eggs up on the water line. So, I've noticed them for years out there [along with] [m]any snakes [and], alligators. Id. Over the years, Dr. Blanco has observed changes, especially among the wading birds and the aquatic species: You see less and less of them. The periods where there's consistent water to support their life has grown shorter as time goes by. And this time of year where there's water, the life is pretty abundant. But then, in recent years, I've noticed that the time period seems to be getting shorter and shorter. And then . . . when I go out there, I use all my senses, not just my eyes, and the place just sounds different when it's full of life versus when it's, essentially, dried up. (Tr. 374-375). Just as in any typical cypress-forested wetland, during wet periods, the cypress trees in the Cypress-forested Wetland "will be inundated and the ground will be saturated to the edge of the uplands." (Tr. 45). During these times, the majority of the storms that deliver rain are considered small, that is, rainstorms of below half an inch. Much bigger storms, of course, also contribute to the water that stands in the wetland from time to time. "By the same token, in droughts or dry seasons, the water levels . . . typically drop to at or below the ground level." (Tr. 46). The dry periods, if part of the natural cycles between hydro-periods, contribute to the health of the system. For example, during dry periods nutrients are oxidized, one of the functions of a wetland. In 2002, the Cypress-forested Wetland was dried out from mid-March at the end of the dry season until the end of July, a period of drought. The dry season and the occasional drought contribute, of course, to a lowering of the water table below the surface of the wetland. But the water table may also be lowered by the pumping of water from wellfields in the area, one to the northwest of the site, another to the southeast. That pumping is monitored by the District. The District takes action to minimize damage from any lowering of the water table caused by pumping water from the wellfields. Apple snails have been recently observed in the Cypress-forested Wetland. "Apple snails are unique in that they're the sole food of the snail kite, an endangered species." (Vol. III, p. 61). There are snags and dead trees in the Cypress-forested Wetland as well. Used by many birds and mammals, they provide particularly good habitat for woodpeckers. The Cypress-forested Wetland is not a pristine wetland. The establishment of the railroad bed had an impact. In its abandoned state, the railroad bed continues to have an influence on its discharge to the north. The Suncoast Parkway "might have had some impact." (Tr. 53). Cattle grazing on both the Blanco Property and the Ashley Glen site has had an impact on the herbaceous ground cover layer and on the wetland's water quality although it is unlikely that the cows grazed in the Cypress-forested Wetland. ("Generally, [cows] don't graze on . . . wetland plants, because they're either bitter tasting or [have] poor textures . . . .") (Vol. III, p. 58). The well- fields in the area have had historic impacts mitigated, as mentioned, through implementation of an area-wide hydrology restoration plan by SWFWMD. The most significant impact to the Cypress-forested Wetland resulted from the combination of the construction of State Road 54 and the ditch's channelization of stormwater runoff migrating through the center of the Ashley Glen site. Had the property not been ditched, the stormwater runoff and any other migrating water would have been conveyed by sheet flow into the Cypress-forested Wetland. Despite the varied impacts over the years, the Cypress-forested wetland remains ratable today "as a mid to higher level quality wetland for the area." (Tr. 43). The Draft Permit Application for the permit was submitted on February 7, 2003. After eight formal submittals of information in response to questions by the District, a Draft Permit was issued on December 16, 2003. The Draft Permit lists the "Project Name as Ashley Glen - Villages 2-5" and otherwise refers to Ashley Glen as the "Project." The Permit allows the Project to fill 43.75 acre-feet of the 100-year flood plain on the Ashley Glen site. At the same time, the Permit allows 51.98 acre-feet of excavation on- site. Project construction will result in the filling of 1.61 acres of forested and non-forested wetlands and secondary impacts to at least one of the isolated wetlands. The permit speaks to secondary impacts to another of the wetlands and surface waters on-site and finds that there are none: "[O]ne isolated wetland, 0.37 acre in size, and 2.81 acres of surface waters will be impacted, however, since these areas provide no significant habitat functions, no habitat mitigation will be required." District Ex. 5, pgs. 3-4. The mitigation for the impacts that require mitigation, in the District's view, includes creation of 2.89 acres of wetlands and preservation of 65.32 acres of wetlands. The Permit also authorizes the construction of a new surface water management system (the "SWM System") to serve Ashley Glen. The Surface Water Management System The SWM System consists of six wet detention ponds, four isolated wetland treatment systems, an attenuation pond, and an associated conveyance and discharge structure. The wet detention ponds and the isolated wetland treatment systems were designed in accordance with Section 5.2 of the District's Basis of Review. Westfield Ex. 6 depicts the "generalities of the [SWS] [S]ystem in [Ashley Glen's] built environment." (Tr. 56). Key pipe areas are shown in white on the exhibit. For example, the existing ditch is re-located slightly to the east; the exhibit shows in white where water is piped from the northern terminus of the new, re-located ditch into Pond P11. This piped water will consist of drainage from the south that is now conveyed by the existing ditch and drainage from the east that passes through Wetland W2 and Wetland W1. In keeping with the historical drainage pattern that preceded the existence of the ditch, drainage from the basin on the eastern part of the property that passes through Wetland F4, Wetland E4, and Wetland D5 will also be discharged westward into P11 to be discharged at a point toward the southernmost part of Wetland A3, the wetland's headwaters. The discharge from P11 was described by Mr. Courtney at hearing: The discharge of P11 was placed up in the headwaters of A3 [where] . . . the [existing] ditch short-circuited the discharge of . . . waters to the discharge point of A3. [An SWM System] . . . control structure is placed at the headwaters of A3, a much better situation for A3, given that the quantities and quality of water is going to be the same or better, because water is now going to be reintroduced to the headwaters of A3 as opposed to short- circuiting it. (Tr. 57). Mr. Courtney estimated that one-fourth to one-half of the surface water flows on the property coming from the south and the east were routed unnaturally by the ditch to Wetland A3's discharge point at the railroad right-of-way at the northernmost point of the wetland. The project re-routes these waters to a point near the headwaters of Wetland A3 (in its southernmost part). Surficial flow, therefore, that had by- passed Wetland A3 because of ditching will be routed by the SWM System to the headwaters of Wetland A3 after treatment and attenuation provided that the attenuation pond reaches a high enough elevation. Any water discharged to Wetland A3 from the attenuation pond will flow in a northerly direction (the historical flow pattern) through the wetland to the point of discharge at the railroad bed. Provided that the restored flow is of good quality, restoration of the hydrology is a benefit to the system. On this point, Dr. Baca agreed with Mr. Courtney. The Cypress-forested Wetland on the Blanco Property and the wetland system that extends north of the railroad bed "are dependent upon the treatment, the care and the protection afforded the wetland on the Ashley Glen property." (Vol. III, pg. 60). Wetlands B8 and D3, surrounded by developed lots, are served by detention ponds. Internal drainage from the lots is collected from street systems. Pop-off from the systems goes either directly to a detention pond and then a wetland or to a sump and then to a wetland. After treatment, the drainage is conveyed to Pond P11. Pond P10, a relatively small detention pond, is situated at the headwaters of Wetland A3. The pond treats runoff and flows into Wetland A3. Pond P11, although not a stormwater detention pond and for which the applicant receives no treatment credit, is nonetheless "a good backup treatment mechanism for stormwater that is meeting state water quality standards as discharged from all of the drainage systems in the uplands." (Tr. 59). Through the attenuation process, moreover, it will perform some treatment that meets or exceeds the minimal requirements of ERP permitting. After attenuation and whenever the pond reaches a certain elevation, waters are discharged into Wetland A3. A major point of focus of Dr. Blanco's case is the excavation of the attenuation pond and its interaction with Wetland A3. The attenuation pond is designated in the Draft Permit as Pond P11 ("P11"). P11 If excavated according to present plans, P11 will be 25 feet deep at its deepest point (less than one percent of the pond). "[T]he deepest areas run along the corridor that goes between [Wetlands] B6 and D5." (Tr. 166). The shallowest areas of P11 are along the western edge of the pond where a shelf will be constructed. The surface area of the pond will take up approximately 40 acres. (See endnote 4). The Respondents refers to P11 as a "100 year flood plain compensation area." (Tr. 116). The Permit's "Water Quantity/Quality list of ponds denominates P11's "treatment type" as "[a]ttenuation" which would make it an attenuation pond. Dr. Blanco prefers to call P11 a borrow pit asserting that one reason for its excavation is to obtain fill for the development. Dr. Blanco's labeling of P11 as a borrow pit appears to be correct since the District referred to it as a borrow pit and since significant dredging on site is allowed by the Draft Permit. Whether Dr. Blanco's and the District's nomenclature for P11 is accurate or not, there is no dispute that P11 is part of the stormwater management system. The Draft Permit ascribes to it the function of attenuation: the process by which flow is slowed that allows compounds to be reduced in concentration over time. It is a significant component of the SWM System. Conveyance of water of sufficient quality that has undergone attenuation from the pond into a point near the headwaters of Wetland A3, moreover, poses the potential to improve the wetland's hydrology. Dr. Blanco asserts that fill needed by the Project could be obtained off-site. In other words, P11 does not need to be excavated to obtain the fill. But obtaining fill material is not the only purpose of P11 since it also provides retention and attenuation functions. Dr. Blanco's main concern with P11, however, is not its status as a borrow pit. His concern is based on three of its characteristics, the latter two of which relate to its nature as a borrow pit: 1) its placement, excavated directly adjacent to Wetland A-3; 2) its depth, at its deepest point, 25 feet; and 3) its size; close to 40 acres in open surface area.4 Due to sheer size of P11's open surface area, significant volumes of water in P11 will be lost routinely to evapo-transpiration. When the water level in P11 is below the water level in Wetland A3, moreover, the pond will draw water out of the Cypress-forested Wetland. Whenever the water is below its control elevation, it will take a considerable volume of water to raise it to the elevation appropriate to protect Wetland A3 and the rest of the Cypress-forested Wetland. Reaching the control elevation will occur only when all available storage has been filled and contributions of water (from rainfall, stormwater run-off, or by way of conveyance through the SWM System or otherwise) exceed loss through evaporation and seepage, downward and lateral. The parties disagree as to whether the applicant has provided the assurances necessary to justify issuance of the Permit. The most contentious point is about the effect P11 will have on Wetland A3 and the extended Cypress-forested Wetland. Westfield (with the support and concurrence of the District) bases its case for assurances, in the main, on a type of computer modeling. Dr. Blanco, on the other hand, presented testimony that criticized the computer modeling that was done in this case in support of the application. That computer modeling is known as "Interconnected Pond Routing" or "ICPR." ICPR Interconnected Pond Routing ("ICPR") is a type of hydrological computer model that takes into account surface water flows. It does not take into account groundwater flows, downward or lateral seepage or the lowering of the water table by well-field pumping. It models the surface water hydrology of a site as it might be affected, for example, by detention basins and channel pipes. It models pre-design of a site to be developed and then post-design of a site prior to actual development to provide comparative analysis. It is also a predictive tool. As with any predictive tool, its accuracy can only be definitively determined by observation and collection of data after-the-fact, in this case, after development. ICPR modeling is used in particular for stormwater and surface water management systems. For that reason, it was used by Westfield to support the ERP application in this case. Before ICPR modeling of the Ashley Glen site and the surrounding area was conducted, topographic information was collected by survey. The results of the survey and the modeling that followed resulted in several of the exhibits used by Westfield at hearing. For example, the topographic information and ICPR were used to produce a post-development map (Westfield Exhibit 12). In addition to sub-basins reflected in Westfield Exhibit 11 that relate to the hydrology of the site the map shows two pods (a "Southern Pod" and a "Northern Pod") of development. Approximately 400 feet of the Southern Pod will abut Wetland A3 on the pod's western edge. The location of the Southern Pod will necessitate re-location of the existing ditch. The Northern Pod, in contrast, will be separated from Wetland A3 by both P11 and the proposed road. The Northern Pod, the larger of the two proposed pods of development, is farther from Wetland A3 although it is separated from Wetland C2 solely by the proposed road. The sub-basins on Westfield Ex. 12 are reflected in Westfield Ex. 11, the result of pre-design modeling that revealed three off-site basins composed of 218, 544 and 908 acres. Each sub-basin corresponds to a detention pond designed to assist in enhancing the site's post-development hydrology. The modeling was also used to introduce P11, Westfield's proposed 100-year flood compensation area that would act as a detention pond for attenuation. Each sub-basin used in the modeling exercises covers an area for which there is information relative to size, curve number and time of concentration, all of which was entered into the modeling. Kyle Cyr, a registered P.E. in the State of Florida, and an expert in ICPR and stormwater modeling, described at hearing what happened next: The input is then directed towards a node, which we call the wetlands of the node or detention ponds. And then each node is interlinked by either channels, pipes or weirs, swells, drop structures. * * * [W]e check the models for pre and post to make sure there's no adverse impacts to off- site properties. No additional flows are allowed to leave the site. * * * We end up with flows, staging elevations for each node. . . . [The result is] [a] drainage report. [The] drainage report has a pre- and post- analysis in it. * * * [The] drainage report [is used] to design the site, to design the elevations and grading of the roads and [then] the lot and culvert sizes. (Tr. 147, 148). The drainage report and the information with regard to the design was then submitted by Westfield to the District together with a "pond wetland hydrology interaction report" and modeling with regard to "several minor storm events, a one-inch, a two-inch and a mean-annual event run . . . like a normal rainfall in the area." (Tr. 150). Various hydrographs for storm events were prepared by Westfield. In general, storm events should assist the hydrology of Wetland A3. The SWM System poses the potential that in storm events, P11 will discharge water to Wetland A3. The discharge pre-supposes that P11 will be at an appropriate elevation to allow the discharge with the addition of the surface water conveyed by the system into the pond. Hydrographs of the time versus inflow into Wetland A3 for pre-development and post-development conditions for the storm events were prepared by Westfield. For the one-inch storm and the mean-annual events, provided the pond is at an appropriate elevation prior to the storm (a proviso applicable to all of the hydrograph information), it is reasonably expected that there will be slight increases in peak flow after the development than before. For the two-inch storm, it is reasonably expected that there will be a slight drop in peak flow. None of the changes should have a negative effect on Wetland A3 so long as P11 maintains appropriate water elevations so that water has not been drawn out of the wetland that would have sustained the wetland had P11 not been excavated.5 Hydrographs that depict expected volume over a 72-hour time frame were also prepared based on the same storm events. During the applicable time frame for two-inch and mean-annual events, it is reasonably expected that there will be a slight increase in the volume of water entering Wetland A3 after development. As the result of a one-inch storm event, it is reasonable to expect there to be a slight decrease in volume over the 72 hours. None of the changes are expected to have a negative effect on Wetland A3, again, provided that appropriate water elevations are maintained in P11. Finally, hydrographs were prepared for time-versus- inflow for 25-year and 100-year storm events both pre- development and post-development. The modeling showed that, after development, "[a]djacent properties will not experience the higher flood level [that] they have in the past." (Tr. 156). The decrease is due to the holding back of water in detention ponds after development that will flow off at a slower rate than under pre-development conditions. The hydrographs show the difference in water flowing onto the site and Wetland A3 after the development under typical conditions in comparison to before development is slight. Water levels in Wetland A3 at times of typical storm events, after development, therefore will not be affected in any meaningful way by the SWM System so long as P11's water level is maintained at an appropriate elevation. In accordance with Section 4.2 of the District's Basis of Review, the SWM System is designed so that "[o]ff-site discharge is limited to amounts that will not cause adverse off- site impacts." Section 4.2 of the Basis of Review. See District Ex. 4, CHAPTER FOUR, pg. 1. The allowable discharges from the Project were established as a pre-development peak discharge rate from a 25-year, 24-hour storm. The modeling showed that the post-development discharge rates do not exceed the pre-development peak discharge rate. The ICPR modeling did not consider the outfall from Wetland A3 that occurs at the abandoned railroad right-of-way on the northern end of Wetland A3. As explained by Mr. Cyr, "Wetland A3 is . . . [a] boundary condition. That's where our model stops." (Tr. 198). The structure at the outfall at the northern end of Wetland A3 consists of three 42-inch pipes. Had the outfall been considered, Mr. Cyr testified, it would have had no effect on the results of the modeling. The understanding of the effect on the hydrology of the site provided by ICPR modeling conducted by Mr. Cyr, the drainage report and the other aspects of the information (such as the hydrographs and the design and information related to water quality) gathered and produced by Westfield support the District in its decision to issue the Permit. But there is a criticism of the modeling. It was presented by Dr. Blanco's witness: Mr. Vecchioli, an expert in hydrology as it relates to groundwater. The Site's Hydrogeology The area in which Ashley Glen, the Blanco Property and the Cypress-forested Wetland sit was described by John Vecchioli, a licensed geologist in Florida and an expert in hydrogeology, as: a low-lying plain of limited altitude . . . underlain by some 20 to 50 feet of . . . fine to very fine sand, sometimes silty, sometimes containing a clay layer or two. And then beneath that blanket of sand is . . . the upper Floridan [A]quifer, . . . a thick deposit of limestone, which also constitutes the primary source of drinking water for the area. (Tr. 93). Connected with the surface waters of the area so that the aquifer and the surface waters function as a single system, the Floridan Aquifer in Pasco County is known as a "leaky- confined aquifer." Id. Its "leaky-confined" nature means that: [The Floridan is] not firmly capped by thick layers of clay, but rather by sand deposits that although . . . more pervious than the layers of clay, still impede the exchange of water between the two systems. Id. The source of the water in the upper Florida Aquifer is mainly rainfall because the Aquifer "intercept[s] waters from the surface." (Vol. III, Tr. 95). Much of the water in the upper Floridan is recharged, "very young water . . . indicating that it has a good connection with the surface." Id. The interaction between the surface water and ground water was shown by a study that "showed . . . 93% of the water derived from . . . public supply wells [was] primarily from capture of water from the surface environment." (Vol. III, Tr. 94). Furthermore, "[t]here's some 133 million gallons per day pumped from a combination of wellfields in [the] area [of Ashley Glen and the Blanco Property]." Id. The documented adverse impacts of the pumping in the area has been limited to "drying up the surface, capturing water from streams, pulling down . . . wetlands." Id. The interaction between the surface waters and groundwater in and around Ashley Glen leads to Mr. Vecchioli's opinion that the effects of the SWM System on groundwater, and in particular the effect of Pond P11, "is a very important aspect . . . almost totally ignored [by Westfield and the District.]" Id. In other words, ICPR, because it does not account for effects on groundwater, is a flawed model for determining the impact on all water resources in the area. It did not consider "downward leakage as a means for water to escape from the pond [P11]." (Vol. III, p. 96). The omission is critical because the Floridan aquifer system has a potentiometric surface that's some 10 to 20 feet lower than the water table or surface environment most times during the year. The meaning of this was explained at hearing by Mr. Vecchioli: [T]here's a downward gradient where water will flow from the land surface in the vicinity of Pond 11 [Pll] down into the Floridan. When [Westfield's consultants] did the evaluation of the wetland-pond interaction, they ignored this. They essentially said that because we don't intend to penetrate the confining layer, which SWFWMD does not want done, that there won't be any leakage out of the pond vertically. This is not correct . . . . [I]n creating the pond . . . 25 feet or roughly half of the confining bed, or a greater amount, [will be removed], so this makes it much easier for water to move from the water table at land surface down into the Floridan . . . . Id. The failure to account for downward leakage or "vertical seepage" is significant. "[I]t . . . creates the uncertainty as to whether P11 is going to receive enough water to stay saturated to the top for much of the year." (Vol. III, Tr. 96- 97). If the water level in P11 does not stay at the control elevation, "there will be a downward gradient that prevails from the adjacent wetland [Wetland A3] into the pond and part of this will leak out into the Floridan aquifer, in addition to additional water lost by evaporation from the open surface of the pond. [This] . . . will create a deficiency in storage for the pond." (Vol. III, Tr. 97). Furthermore, with the removal of the sand during excavation and the replacement of it with water, "the material the water [that is contributing to seepage] has to move through is less, so you have much less energy lost to frictional forces." (Vol. III, Tr. 115). The result is that vertical seepage will be more likely to occur after the pond is excavated than before. In other words, it will be much easier for water to move from the surface into the Floridan. The seepage, moreover poses difficulties in maintaining elevation in P11. Evaporation from the pond will be greater than evaporation from the wetland. If water in the pond is not at the appropriate elevation, water will be drawn from Wetland A3. The wetland will be drier than under natural conditions. Mr. Vecchioli stopped short of predicting that downward leakage would damage the wetland; he stated only that damage would occur if P11 functions as he thought it "might." (Vol. III, Tr. 106). In essence, Mr. Vecchioli's opinion does not stand as a projection of certainty that the wetland will be damaged. Instead, it presents a factor that was not considered by Westfield in its analysis and by the District in its review. The District counters Mr. Vecchioli's opinion with the fact that the depth of the excavation is in compliance with the District's Basis of Review and that it will not remove what SWFWMD considers to be a "primary retarding material or section," that is, a layer of clay. But it will remove much of the sand. Sand, while it inhibits downward seepage from the surface into the aquifer, is nonetheless not impermeable; it is not an aquitard. Seepage, therefore, will occur despite compliance with the Basis of Review (as explained, below) with regard to depth of excavation and aquitards. Depths of Excavation and Aquitards Subsection 6.4.1.b of the Basis of Review addresses depths of excavation: 6.4.1 Dimensional Criteria (as measured at or from the control elevation). * * * b. Depth - The detention or retention area shall not be excavated to a depth that breaches an aquitard such that it would allow for lesser quality water to pass, either way, between the two systems. In those geographical areas of the District where there is not an aquitard present, the depth of the pond shall not be excavated to within two (2) feet of the underlying limestone which is part of a drinking water aquifer. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER SIX, Pg. 2 The term "aquitard" is not a term that appears in the "Explanation of Terms" section of the Basis of Review. See District Ex. 4, Section 1.7, CHAPTER ONE, pgs. 2-6. The District does not consider sand to be an aquitard. Clay, on the other hand, is an aquitard. As explained by Mr. Ritter at hearing, the term aquitard is "defined as a somewhat impermeable layer that if you were to cut through that, that would be considered a breach." (Vol. III, Tr. 128). If the District were to consider sand an aquitard, there is nowhere in the District that a pond could be excavated in compliance with subsection 6.4.1.b of the Basis of Review. The Ashley Glen proposal for the excavation of Pond P11 to a depth of 25 feet complies with the Basis of Review. The depth of excavation of the pond does not come within two feet of the underlying limestone. Nor does it breach a clay layer or any other aquitard. Compliance with the "depth of excavation" and "aquitard" provisions of the Basis of Review does not cure the problem with the placement of Pond P11: adjacent to Wetland A3. The problem was addressed (although not resolved) by a post- Draft Permit correction that showed more water reaching Wetland A3 by way of the SWM System than had been shown in the original modeling. Post-Draft Permit Correction The modeling described at hearing included a correction after the issuance of the Draft Permit. The correction was made because of "an additional off-site contributing area east of the project that was not considered in the original flood study prepared by the [applicant's] consultant . . . ." (Tr. 222). The model was updated to incorporate the additional contributions that had not been considered prior to the issuance of the Draft Permit. After the additional data was introduced, the modeling suggested changes that Westfield made to its proposal. On the north end of the Project, a conveyance channel had to be enlarged. Additional culverts were proposed beneath the proposed roadway to reduce flood impacts from the additional flows entering from the east that had been overlooked. Further evaluation by the District ensued in the wake of the additional modeling. Ultimately, in the process that preceded the final administrative hearing, the application was determined by the District to "still me[e]t the conditions for issuance and [staff, therefore] recommended approval." Id. In other words, this additional water would not cause too much water to flow into Wetland A3 and cause adverse impacts from flooding. The additional data demonstrates that there will be more water flowing through the SWM System and into Wetland A3 then originally projected but not too much so as to cause adverse flooding impacts. The additional water, however, does not cure the problem that Pond P11 poses for Wetland A3 as explained by Mr. Vecchioli due to the wetland's location, depth and open surface area. Location, Depth and Open Surface Area In the final analysis, while there may be nothing out of compliance technically with the depth of P11 and the size of its open surface area, when these factors are combined with the location of P11, adjacent to Wetland A3, there is a problem: the potential for adverse impact to Wetland A3 and the extended Cypress-forested Wetland of which it is a part. Seepage and evaporation will make it difficult to maintain the water levels in P11 necessary for the pond to discharge into the wetland. Furthermore, when the water table is down, whether due to drought, pumping activities in the region or for some other reason, and P11 is not at an appropriate elevation, it will draw water out of Wetland A3. Seepage and evaporation have the potential to exacerbate the drawdown. Seepage promoted by the presence of Pond P11 was not taken into account in the modeling done for the project. Without consideration of all the factors material to the site that should enter an appropriate calculation, there is not reasonable assurance that Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland will not suffer adverse impacts from the SWM System. Monitoring Water Quantity Section 3.2.2.4(c) of the Basis of Review states: Whenever portions of a system could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands or other surface waters, applicants shall be required to monitor the wetlands or other surface waters to demonstrate that such alteration has not resulted in adverse impacts, or to calibrate the system to prevent adverse impacts. Monitoring parameters, methods, schedules, and reporting requirements shall be specified in permit conditions. District Ex. 4, Chapter Three, P. 6. The District determined that the routing analysis and volume calculations with regard to the hydrology on-site and the hydrology of the wetlands provided by Westfield show that there will not be significant or frequent negative changes in wetland hydrology on site. The District concluded, therefore, there is no necessity to require monitoring of wetland water levels in the Permit. The District's determination, based as it is on the ICPR modeling provided by Westfield, does not withstand the criticism by Mr. Vecchioli. If the District, in the face of the evidence of record and Mr. Vecchioli's criticism, nonetheless decides that reasonable assurances have been made by Westfield, the District should require monitoring pursuant to the subsection 3.2.2.4(c) of the Basin of Review; without doubt, the excavation of Pond P11 adjacent to Wetland A3 has at least the potential to affect water levels in the wetland system. Water Quality The depth of P11 poses some dangers to water quality. Generally, the deeper a Florida lake, the more anoxic and "the more likely you have . . . nutrients such as phosphorus, binding up in the [waterbody] and then being released later" (vol. III, p. 64) to affect the waterbodies negatively. Wetlands surrounding P11, acting like "sponges" would provide treatment that removes nutrients and locks up chemicals to reduce their toxicity would improve water quality. But the District's rules do not require biological treatment for nutrients as part of the design of a surface water system. Given its nature as an attenuation pond, P11 will act like a secondary sediment sump. This aspect of P11 contributes no treatment credit to the application, as mentioned earlier, but any water entering Wetland A3 from P11 will have been treated by an SWM System so as to meet the District's requirements. Other measures will improve water quality on- site. One of such measures, for example, is that cattle on-site will be removed. Other measures related to water quality were examined by District staff. As he testified on behalf of the District, Mr. Sauskojus "checked to see whether or not . . . erosion control was located between any construction in the wetlands and/or buffers provided." (Tr. 288). He also checked to see that structures through which stormwater flowed into wetlands were equipped with skimmers. The inquiries led him to conclude as an expert in environmental resource permitting that water quality would not be adversely affected by the SWM System. Monitoring of water quality by the District may be done after the Permit has been finally issued and the SWM System is constructed. The District so provides in the Basis of Review. Section 5.13 of the District's Basis of Review states: Staff reports and permits for projects not requiring monitoring at the time of permit issuance will include a statement that water quality monitoring will be required in the future if necessary to ensure that state water quality standards are being met. This should not be construed as an indication that the District is contemplating the implementation of a program of intensive water quality monitoring by all permittees. District Ex. 4, Chapter Five, P. 6. Assurances Other than ICPR P11's Shelf Westfield proposes creation of a shelf along the western boundary of P11. It is approximately 150 feet wide with a slope of "a hundred to one . . . a flat area . . . right around the seasonal high elevation of [the] pond." (Tr. 158). Just as it does not claim treatment credit for P11, Westfield does not claim treatment credit for the shelf. There will not be any planting on the shelf; nor is it designed to serve as a littoral zone. A "shelf is . . . in some cases the final location for . . . the filtration [and] the protection for the wetland[;] . . . it acts as a wetland buffer for the mature forested wetland." (Vol. III, p. 59). But the shelf to be provided by Westfield is "just . . . a secondary shelf to help the interaction between the wetland and the pond." (Tr. 159). Without vegetation, the shelf provided will be of insignificant benefit. Dewatering During Construction To prevent dewatering of Wetland A3 during construction, a dewatering plan must be provided the District before excavation of P11 begins. The Permit contains a general condition that if the contractor "decides to use dewatering" (tr. 223) of a wetland, the District must be notified so that an assessment of adverse effects on the wetland can be made.6 Wetland Impacts: Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation Direct impacts to wetlands include excavation or filling: events that entail physical construction in the wetland. The Project proposes direct wetland impacts to 1.61 acres of wetlands and 2.81 acres of surface waters or wet ditches. With regard to impacts, an applicant must first attempt to avoid them. If that fails, the applicant must minimize the impact. Finally, the applicant must propose mitigation for impacts. Direct Impacts to Wetlands In addition to the secondary impacts caused by the Project's upland activities to the many wetlands on-site that are buffered or that were not buffered and that have to be offset by mitigation, Wetland B12, a wetland little more than one-half acre in size, will receive both direct and secondary impacts. The direct impact is caused by the proposed road. The direct impact is unavoidable because of road alignment required by the Department of Transportation, "a human health and safety issue [that relates] to State Road 54." (Tr. 64). The direct impact to Wetland B12 takes up .15 acres, leaving .43 acres of the wetland without direct impact. (At the same time, Wetland B9 is avoided by the curve in the proposed road and the road is aligned to avoid direct impact to Wetlands B6 and D5.) Wetland B12 is exempt from fish and wildlife review because it "is not connected by a ditch or overland flow to a larger than half-acre wetland at seasonal high " (Tr. 283). The value of Wetland B12, as an isolated wetland, is not as high as the value of Wetland A3. It has also suffered de-watering and encroachment by exotic species. Wetland C12, just down the proposed road from Wetland B12, will incur direct impact to 0.05 acres. The remainder of the wetland on site, 1.80 acres will be preserved under a conservation easement. Wetland B4 is a small, herbaceous wetland. In the middle of what is now cow pasture slated for excavation if the Project is approved, Wetland B4 will suffer permanent destruction by the creation of Pond P11. The direct impact will cover 0.75 of an acre, the size of the wetland as it now exits. Wetland C4, 0.60 acres in size, will also be permanently destroyed by the establishment of several lots in the Northern Pod of development and excavation of P4, a wet detention pond. The justification offered by Westfield for the permanent destruction of these two relatively small isolated wetlands is economic. Saving them would cost $215,000. Mitigation of the Direct Impacts The project preserves wetlands on site with conservation easements. If the wetland is a good candidate for wetland stormwater treatment, the project attempts to augment its hydrology. The direct impacts of Westfield's planned activities are proposed to be mitigated by the construction of 2.89 acres of non-forested wetlands and by the preservation of 65.32 acres of wetlands on site. Section 3.3.2 in the Basis of Review provides: Subsections 3.3.2[.1] through 3.3.2.2 [of the Basis of Review] establish ratios for the acreage of mitigation required compared to the acreage which is adversely impacted by regulated activity. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, P. 21. When preservation of wetland and other surface waters is the vehicle of mitigation, it also provides: The ratio guideline for wetland and other surface water preservation will be 10:1 to 60:1 (acreage wetlands and other surface waters preserved to acreage impacted). District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, P. 24. The ratio of wetlands and other surface waters proposed for preservation (65.32 acres) to wetlands proposed to be permanently destroyed (1.61 acres) by Westfield is more than 40 to 1, well within the guideline. The wetland area to be created is designated as Wetland B2. Adjacent to two wetland systems, Wetland A3 and Wetland C2, and lying between them, Wetland B2 will also serve as a wetland habitat wildlife corridor. The 2.89 acres of created non-forested wetlands that will constitute Wetland B2 offset 1.36 of non-forested impact, a ratio of 2.13 to 1. The ratio is within the guidelines for created wetlands in Section 3.3.2.1.1. of the Basis of Review. In the District's view, the applicant's wetland mitigation proposal provides the District with reasonable assurances that impacts to wetland functions will be offset. Put slightly differently by Mr.Sauskojus, in the view of District staff, "weighing the proposed direct impacts, the secondary impacts and the mitigation provided, . . . there will not be adverse impacts on site or offsite . . . ." (Tr. 293). Since downward and lateral seepage from Pond P11 was not taken into account, however, the mitigation plan offered by Westfield is not designed to offset any impacts from the seepage to Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland. These impacts are secondary impacts. Secondary Impacts A secondary impact is an impact that follows a direct impact to a water resource. An example of a secondary impact is boat traffic increase because of the installation of a boat ramp or a marina that poses an increased threat of collision with manatees. The construction of the boat ramp or the marina would entail direct impacts to the water resource. The increased boat traffic would constitute impacts secondary to the construction of the ramp or marina. A way to minimize secondary impacts is through buffers. Just as the Cypress-forested Wetland should be buffered from development, so should the isolated wetlands on-site. Isolated wetlands are important for several reasons. They accept the brunt of the discharges from the developed uplands and so are responsible for filtering nutrients, pesticides and chemicals from stormwater and other run off. They also are spots where wildlife congregate. Birds, in particular, will be under siege from the cats that inevitably accompany development. Buffers, particularly vegetated buffers, assist in protection of wetlands whether contiguous or isolated. Section 3.3.7 of the Basis of Review provides: Secondary impacts to habitat functions of wetlands associated with upland activities will not be considered adverse if buffers, with a minimum width of 15' and an average width of 25' are provided abutting those wetlands that will remain under the permitted design, unless additional measures are needed for protection of wetlands used by listed species for nesting, denning, or critically important feeding habitat. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, Pg. 16. The upland activities of the Project have an average 25-foot buffer. For the bulk of the Project, the buffer is at least 15 feet, a minimum buffer that is normally required. Close to the headwaters of Wetland A3, however, the Southern Pod of development does not have a buffer that is equal to or more than 15 feet. In this area and other areas where there are less than 15 feet of buffer (such as around isolated Wetlands B8 and D3), the Project calls for a double silt fence, that is, a two- rowed fence to hold back silt. The silt fence will protect the wetland from damage during grading of the lots and construction of the residences. But it will not protect the wetland from secondary impacts caused by upland activities after the Project is developed. The buffers are made up of bahaia grass primarily. The import of the buffer's composition was explained at hearing by David Sauskojus, a District employee: If a buffer is made up of pasture grass, it is definitely much less effective relative to protecting habitat functions than . . . an undisturbed upland. . . . [I]n this case, . . . in the past before they made it pasture, [the undisturbed upland would have] consisted of palmettos, bryonia, bushes, [and] shrubs, that would have provided some kind of habitat value to the wetland itself. (Tr. 282). Despite the low quality of the composition of the buffers, the additional width of buffers in other areas that allow the average of the buffers to exceed 25 feet was reasonable assurance in the view of District personnel that the encroachment of development closer than 15 feet in certain areas would not have secondary habitat impacts to Wetland A3. Because of this "offset," the District did not request the applicant to mitigate for the encroachments into the minimum 15 feet of buffer normally required. Cumulative Impacts Section 3.2.8.1 of the Basis of Review provides: Cumulative impacts are considered unacceptable when the proposed system, considered in conjunction with the past, present, and future activities as described in 3.2.8 would then result in a violation of state water quality standards as set forth in subsection 3.1.1(c) or significant adverse impacts to functions of wetlands or other surface waters identified in subsection 3.2.2 within the same drainage basin when considering the basin as a whole. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, P. 19. The Project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts on the wetlands and other surface waters on site. Fish, Wildlife and Listed Species Under the Basin of Review, when a party applies for an ERP, "[g]enerally, wildlife surveys will not be required." District Ex. 4, Basin of Review, Section 3.2.2, CHAPTER THREE, page 4. The Basin of Review details when a wildlife survey is required: The need for a wildlife survey will depend upon the likelihood that the site is used by listed species, considering site characteristics and the range and habitat needs of such species, and whether the proposed system will impact that use such that criteria in subsection 3.2.2 through 3.2.2.3 and subsection 3.2.7 will not be met. Survey methodologies employed to inventory the site must provide reasonable assurance regarding the presence or absence of the subject listed species. Id. It is apparent from the record that District staff initially believed that a wildlife survey was needed. The file of record contains a document prepared by District staff entitled "Project Information Review List," (the "First Request for Additional Information" or "1st RAI"). Dated March 7, 2003, it refers to the Application's receipt one month earlier. Under the heading "SITE INFORMATION," the following appears: Has any current wildlife survey been performed on site? In particular, what recent observations have been made of wildlife usage within Wetlands B4, C4 and B12? The submitted wildlife survey not only is almost three years old, but it represents a preliminary effort. (emphasis supplied), Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record,(1st Volume), p. 104. The staff request for additional information continues with recommendations not only to cure the outdated nature of the survey but also for the methodology that should be used: Id. Staff would recommend, for the above three wetlands, that a survey be performed which is consistent with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's methodology, documented within; Standardized State Listed Animal Species Survey Procedures for FDOT Projects by Jim Beaver, revised in 1996, and Wildlife Methodology Guidelines by Mike Alan, 1988. Reference Rules 40D-4.101(1)(c) and (e) and 40D-4.301, F.A.C. and Section 3.2.2, Basis of Review (B.O.R.). The file of record reflects a response to the 1st RAI. With regard to the question as to whether a current wildlife survey has been performed, the criticism of the submitted survey and the recommended methodology to be used in a subsequent survey, Westfield's ERP consultant, King Engineering Associates, Inc., ("King") responds: Site conditions have not changed since King conducted the original preliminary listed species survey. During more recent site visits, King staff have not observed any additional listed species, or evidence of their breeding/nesting activity on the subject property. Onsite wetlands B4 and C4 are essentially shallow, wet depressional areas in the pasture. While these herbaceous wetlands could potentially provide occasional foraging habitat for wading birds, they do not represent suitable habitat for breeding/nesting of any listed species. Wetland B12, a forested wetland, likewise does not represent suitable habitat for breeding/nesting of listed species, and no listed species have been documented in this wetland. As a follow-up effort to King's preliminary listed species survey, and following recommendations made in that report, King has performed additional wildlife surveys. Specifically, a Southeastern Kestrel Survey and Gopher Tortoise Burrow Survey were conducted by King. The results of these follow-up surveys, which were included with Attachment 7 of the original submittal, revealed that neither of these two listed species is currently present on, or breeding/denning on, the subject property. Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record, (1st Volume), p. 123. On May 7, 2003, the District responded by letter to the additional information provided by King with a second Request for Additional Information (the "2nd RAI"). The letter states, "[y]our permit application still lacks some of the components necessary for us to complete our review; the enclosed checklist describes the missing information." District Ex. 19, File of Record, (1st Volume), p. 184). The checklist attached, under the heading "SITE INFORMATION" states: The response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) Comment No. 3, regarding wildlife surveys, does not give the District reasonable assurance that threatened or endangered species do not use the wetlands proposed to be impacted. Many changes have taken place in the vicinity of the project since King performed the preliminary survey three years ago. The construction of the Suncoast Parkway and several nearby residential developments have re-shaped habitat availability within this area. The District strongly recommends performing a wildlife survey to evaluate the usage by threatened or endangered species of Wetlands B4, C4 and B12. The survey should be performed using the previously noted Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) methodology. Additionally, when/if the survey is performed, please provide details regarding the actual survey, including but not limited to, dates, times of day, location and methods used. Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record (1st Volume), p. 185. On June 20, 2003, King responded in writing to the 2nd RAI. With regard to the strong recommendation of a wildlife survey that uses the FFWCC methodology, King wrote: The applicant is confident based on the results of the existing Preliminary Listed Species survey and the extended amount of property contact time by field scientists and District staff in the intervening months when hydro-period, wetlands delineation, and permit application work were on-going, that no wetland dependent species are present. Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record, (1st Volume), p. 198. In addition to the time spent on the preliminary survey, the response lists 64 hours of time when the site was visited for purposes of "[w]etland delineation, wetland delineation & [h]ydro-periods," "h]ydro-periods," "[h]ydro-period [r]eview with SWFWMD," "[f]ollow-up Gopher Tortoise/Kestrel [s]urvey" and "[f]ield [v]isit with ACOE staff." Id. On July 18, 2003, a third RAI ("3rd RAI") was issued by staff. Satisfied with the June 20, 2003, response with regard to the earlier inquiries about a wildlife survey, the 3rd RAI makes no reference to the earlier requests with regard to site information or the need for wildlife survey. Dr. Baca, Dr. Blanco's wetlands ecologist, criticized the wetland information provided by Westfield along the same lines as did District staff in the documents in the file of record. For example, Dr. Baca testified with regard to endangered species that a survey should be conducted over several seasons. A great deal of time must be spent studying the particular habitat and looking for particular organisms. "It cannot be an aside to other work . . . with wetlands or soil studies . . . [i]t has to be a focus of [a wildlife survey]." (Vol. III, tr. 33). A survey for endangered or threatened species requires time and focus precisely because of the nature of listed species; in Dr. Baca's words, "they're not around very much and sometimes they're not around very long." (Vol. III, tr. 32). Time of day that a survey is conducted, moreover, has an impact on the likelihood that wildlife will be found on site. As Dr. Baca testified, Most of the time, you'll find more wildlife on-site around the hours of dusk and dawn . . . Other times, especially during cold weather, wildlife will come out during the hottest part of the day, which is around noon . . . [a]ll of these add to the amount of time that would be required to do a proper study. (Vol. III, Tr. 33). There is no evidence of record as to time of day of the visits used by Westfield for credit toward wildlife observation. Finally, it is apparent that the on-site visits following the preliminary species survey three years prior to the submission of the application did not employ the methodology recommended by the District: the FWWCC methodology. Perhaps an equivalent methodology could be employed, but there is no evidence of an attempt to conduct a survey with an acceptable methodology, either that of FWWCC or an equivalent. The District's acceptance of the Kestrel Survey may have been appropriate.7 But the hours spent visiting the site for wetland delineation and purposes other than to survey wildlife were not shown to have employed the FWWCC methodology or its equivalent and do not supplant the need for a wildlife survey that employs an appropriate methodology. The Mitigation Plan When the impacts of a project that requires an ERP permit are such that an applicant is unable to meet the criteria for approval (the "public interest test"), the applicant may propose or accept measures that mitigate the adverse impacts of the regulated activity so that the Project in its entirety can be demonstrated to be "not contrary to the public interest." In other words, "[t]he mitigation must offset the adverse effects caused by the regulated activity." § 373.414(1)(b), Fla. Stat. It is "the responsibility of the applicant to choose the form of mitigation." Id. As explained by the testimony, all of the mitigation proposed by Westfield is on-site.8 The Respondents' Joint Proposed Recommended Order addresses mitigation for the adverse impacts caused by the Project. The proposed findings that relate to mitigation are summed up in paragraph 16 of the proposed order: 16. The mitigation for the project is appropriate and adequately compens[]ates for the unavoidable direct and secondary wetland impacts from the Project. Respondents' Joint Proposed Recommended Order, p. 6. In support of this finding, the proposed order cites to the File of Record, Westfield Ex. 19, testimony from Mr. Courtney at Tr. 66-76 and 120-121 and testimony from Mr. Sauskojus at Tr. 284-286. Mr. Sauskojus' testimony explains how the mitigation plan adequately mitigates for the direct impacts to wetlands on site. But that explanation does not demonstrate mitigation for all of the potential impacts. No effort was offered for how the plan was designed to mitigate for the impact of draw-down from Wetland A3 caused by low elevation of Pond P11 due to seepage, for example, because seepage was not accounted for in the ICPR modeling. Mr. Courtney's testimony is no different with regard to the same critical omission. Westfield, quite simply, did not take into account, as Mr. Vecchioli testified, the effect of seepage in the information it provided the District. Nor was the mitigation plan designed to mitigate for secondary impacts that might have been indicated by a wildlife survey since an appropriate wildlife survey was not conducted. At bottom, Westfield did not provide reasonable assurances as required by the statutes and rules; it omitted an adequate wildlife survey from the submission of information to the District and it failed to account for seepage from Pond P11 and its effect on Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland. Its mitigation plan does not make up for Westfield's failure to demonstrate that the Project is otherwise "not contrary to the public interest."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Individual Environmental Resource Permit sought by Entryway and Westfield be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 2004.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioners are entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit concerning property they own located in the vicinity of the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida. A related issue concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to seek a variance from the permitting statute and rules at issue in view of Executive Order 90-14 issued by the Governor on January 1, 1990. The Department takes the position that this removes its discretion to consider variance requests for proposed OSDS installations for sites which lie beneath the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River. See Rules 10D-6.043 through 047, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 381.272, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners purchased real property approximately two miles downstream on the Suwannee River from the point where U.S. Highway 19 crosses the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida. They purchased the property on June 6, 1986. The property is located upon a canal which ultimately connects with the Suwannee River. The purchase price of the property was $15,000.00. The applicants paid $3500.00 as a down payment and thereafter have made payments on a Purchase Money First Mortgage in the amount of $255.83 per month. They purchased the property as an investment and as a place to construct a vacation home in the future. On or about February 1, 1990, the applicants filed an application to install an OSDS with the Dixie County Unit of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. An application for a variance from the permitting rules regarding installation and operation of OSDS's was also submitted. The applicant, Ricky R. Robson, applied for the variance apparently because his neighbor, the owner of the adjacent lot, had previously sought and obtained a variance the year before, authorizing him to construct a "mounded OSDS" on his property. The Petitioners, as required by the Department, obtained the services of a registered land surveyor, Herbert C. Parrish, Jr., to perform an elevation survey of the property and the installation site. That elevation survey was submitted with the application documents and showed the surface grade elevation of the installation site to be 11.8 feet above MSL. The Petitioners were also required by HRS to obtain a determination of the ten-year flood elevation for the property from the District. The initial report obtained from the District indicated that the elevation of the ten-year flood plain at the location of the Petitioners' property was 15 feet above MSL. On or about February 23, 1990, the Dixie County Environment Health Officer made an on-site inspection of the property. This inspection included soil borings and a general inspection of the property. The soil borings performed did not reveal the presence of any soil type which would preclude the installation of an OSDS. No vegetative species indicative of frequent flooding were noted. Nevertheless, the health officer determined that the property was subject to "frequent flooding" based upon the District's flood elevation report concerning the ten-year flood elevation. Therefore, the Petitioners' application for an OSDS permit was denied on that basis and on the health officer's belief that Executive Order 90-14 prohibited further construction of OSDS's, including mounded systems within the ten-year flood elevation. In his testimony at hearing, however, Mr. Fross acknowledged that his earlier reference to "frequent flooding" was in error and, indeed, the site is not subject to frequent flooding. The Petitioners elected not to pursue the application for variance after they were informed by the Environmental Health Officer that pursuing such a variance would be futile. This was because no further variances were to be considered or granted by the Department due to the perceived effect of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14 referenced above. That Executive Order adopted, by reference, the "Suwannee River Task Force" recommendation and precluded the installation of OSDS's below the ten-year flood elevation because of risk to health and to ground or surface waters. Subsequent to the initial denial of the application, the Petitioners supplied more detailed information regarding the location of their property to the District and the District issued an amended flood elevation determination indicating that the actual ten-year flood elevation at the location of their property is 14.64 feet above MSL. It has been established in this proceeding that that is the ten-year flood elevation at the Petitioners' property and installation site. There is, thus, a 2.84 foot difference between the surface elevation of the Petitioners' installation site and the ten-year flood elevation. The installation site is characterized by slight-limited soils, consisting of fine sand extending at least 72 inches below the surface grade of the installation site. Additionally, the wet season water table was found to be at least 72 inches beneath the surface grade of the property. Thus, in terms of soil characteristics and water table elevations, the site is certainly appropriate, under the guidelines contained in the rules cited herein, for installation of a conventional subterranean septic tank and drain field system, but for the deficiency under Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code, concerning the bottom surface of the drain field or absorption beds being beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The Petitioners have proposed an alternative solution to the problem involving the surface elevation of the property. That solution would involve the installation of a mounded system which would raise the bottom surface of the drain field trenches or absorption beds above the ten-year flood elevation. The Petitioners, in essence, propose to accomplish this by compliance with Rule 10D- 6.049, Florida Administrative Code, which contains specifications and requirements concerning installation of a base filled area surrounding a mound and requirements concerning placement of the septic tank and drain field within that mound. Given the requirements of that rule which limits the mound to a 36- inch height, but allows a base pad of fill of appropriate soils to be placed beneath the mound before its construction, it is obvious, given the 2.84 foot differential between the surface grade of the installation site and the ten-year flood elevation, that installation of such a mounded system would amount to a feasible alternative OSDS which will raise the drain field trench bottoms above the ten-year flood elevation. In conjunction with the six feet of appropriate soil above the wet season water table, this will assure that public health and ground or surface waters are not harmed or degraded by the installation and operation of such a system. Rule 10D-6.047 clearly envisions that installation of such fill, including a mound for such a system, can be accomplished where it references the "final lot elevation at the site of the proposed system installation . . .", as does Rule 10D-6.049, Florida Administrative Code, where it provides detailed specifications regarding construction of mounded systems and references them as "alternative systems." It should be pointed out, however, that although such a system has been established to be a reasonable alternative OSDS within the meaning of the subject rules at issue, Rule 10D-6.047 proceeds to require that the installation of such a mounded system on property which lies within the regulatory flood way requires a certification of an engineer, registered in the State of Florida, to the effect that the installation of the fill and mound will not serve to alter the "base flood". That engineering evidence and certification has not been adduced in the proof in this proceeding, even though the District, as well as the Department, has approved the installation of such a system on the Larry Gilbert lot, immediately adjacent to the Petitioners' lot, without requiring a "works of the District permit" from the District. The approval of such a similar system on the property with similar elevation immediately adjacent to the subject property might indicate that the Department has a policy of interpreting its rules to allow such mounded systems on property within the ten- year flood elevation, provided that such mounds raise the drain fields above the ten-year flood elevation. It has not been proven, however, that the fact that the District did not require a "works of the District permit" should be and has been interpreted in the past to be equivalent to the engineer's certification required by Rule 10D-6.047. Consequently, a grant of an OSDS permit for such an alternative system for these Petitioners should be conditioned on the provision of such engineering certification, calculations and data to the Department. The Petitioners' property is designated as Lot 24 of Highpoint Suwannee River Front Estates, a platted subdivision. The adjacent lot is Lot 23, owned by Larry Gilbert. The ground elevation of the Gilbert lot is approximately identical to the elevation of the Petitioners' lot. On or about July 14, 1988, Mr. Gilbert made an application to the Department for installation of an OSDS upon his property. The District, in that same month, issued a letter finding that the Gilbert lot was not subject to frequent flooding. The District also indicated in that letter that the installation of 42 inches of suitable soil on the lot would be sufficient for the installation of a mounded in-ground OSDS and that installation of such a system would not violate District rules regarding construction of obstructions in the regulatory flood way. Based upon that information, Mr. Gilbert was able to obtain a variance from the Department's variance board permitting him to install what is known as a "National Sanitation Foundation class I aerobic treatment system" on the property. After obtaining that variance, Mr. Gilbert requested an informal hearing before a Department Hearing Officer regarding the variance board's denial of his request to construct a conventional, but mounded, in-ground OSDS. Following that informal hearing, the Hearing Officer recommended that Mr. Gilbert be permitted to construct a traditional in-ground OSDS utilizing only 36 inches of fill. That informal order was adopted by HRS in a Final Order; and the 36-inch mounded system was constructed upon the Gilbert property, adjacent to the subject property and passed the Department's final inspection.
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 in this proceeding granting the Petitioner an OSDS permit authorizing construction of a mounded septic tank and drain-field system, in accordance with the requirements of Rules 10D-6.046, 10D- 6.047, 10D-6.049, Florida Administrative Code, and in accordance with the conditions discussed and found hereinabove. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of March, 1991, 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 7th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-18. Adopted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-17. Adopted. 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 Robert Moeller, Esq. P.O. Drawer 1419 Cross City, FL 32628 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
The Issue The issue is whether Hernando County's application for an environmental resource permit authorizing the construction of a new surface water management system to serve a 7.85 acre drainage system improvement three miles southeast of Brooksville, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioners, Richard J. Silvani, Dick W. Thompson, James E. and Marilyn Bates, Joyce Menzie, James M. Gibson, Claudia C. Munsell, Mr. and Mrs. Phillip E. Durst, Donald R. Sosnoski, Mr. and Mrs. Robert L. Nelson, and Mr. and Mrs. Richard Ladow (Petitioners), are property owners in central Hernando County, Florida. Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Managment District (District), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing Environmental Resource Permits (ERP) within its jurisdictional boundaries. Respondent, Hernando County (County), is a local government seeking the issuance of a permit for the purpose of alleviating drainage and flooding problems in a subdivision known as High Point Gardens in the central part of the County. On June 11, 1997, the County filed an application with the District seeking authorization to construct a low earthen berm to help control flooding in High Point Gardens, an eighty- five unit residential subdivision. On September 29, 1997, the District gave notice of its intention to issue ERP No. 449342.01 authorizing the "construction of a new surface water management system to serve a 7.85 acre drainage system improvement known as the Hernando County - High Point Gardens Drainage Improvements." The project is located off Sun Hill Lane, three miles southeast of Brooksville, Florida, in central Hernando County. On an undisclosed date, but in a timely fashion, Petitioners filed their Petition for Informal Hearing challenging the issuance of the permit. As grounds, Petitioners alleged that the permit application contained "possible miscalculations of design" which would "alter the natural water flow route"; "adversely affect several acres of natural wetlands by changing hydrology of surface area"; "adversely affect adjacent uplands by innundating forest areas never before flooded by heavy rainfall"; "not guarantee 100% flood protection to the few affected homes"; and "create flood problems to adjacent homes and property by diverting stormwater from natural flow (north) to area east of 'proposed' retention area." The petition further alleged that the "'proposed' area should not be normal recepient [sic] of excess water from Cedar Falls subdivision" and that "all affected properties are not owned or easements acquired by Hernando County for surface water storage." The filing of the petition prompted the initiation of this proceeding. The Permit The High Point Gardens subdivision, which lies within the Bystre Lake Basin, is a "relatively old subdivision," having been built around the 1970's. There is a low area in the middle of the subdivision, and it has "[s]everal sinks with a natural drainage within the area." Because the thirty-square-mile basin is a closed drainage basin, with no natural outflows, "significant" flooding problems have been present throughout the basin since at least the 1980's. In an effort to resolve flooding problems within the basin, the County and District jointly sanctioned a study by a consulting firm, Dames and Moore, to provide suggested alternative actions to correct the problem. The firm's first interim report was rendered on August 5, 1988, and a final report known as the Bystre Lake Stormwater Management Master Plan was rendered in August 1989. Among other things, the consultant's report recommended that a berm be constructed to relieve the flooding in the High Point Gardens' area. Acting on the report, the County obtained a construction permit from the District in August 1991 in accordance with the consultant's recommendation, but construction on the project was not commenced prior to the permit expiring in 1994. Although the consultant's report was the genesis for the first permit, the plans and specifications for the new berm have been modified by engineers after further study and review. It is noted that the total land area of the project will be less than 100 acres. The High Point Gardens subdivision lies within sub-basin 304 of the basin. Under the new proposal, water which now comes into sub-basins 304 and 406 from sub-basins 305 and 306 will be stored in those latter sub-basins. The requested permit would authorize the County to construct a low earthen berm along the western side of sub-basin 406 and the southern boundary of sub- basin 304 to help control flooding in the subdivision. The proposed berm will range from one to five feet in height and extend some 3,250 feet, or approximately six-tenths of a mile. It will range from eight to ten feet in width with a side slope of 4 to 1. The berm will impound water upstream of the berm to an elevation of 90.5 NGVD, which is 1.5 feet higher than the water would rise in the area under natural conditions. The water will be stored in two natural ponds which are now located in the project area. Once the water reaches an elevation of 90.5 NGVD, which will occur only during an event exceeding a 25-year storm event, three overflow structures will become operative and are designed to mimic the natural water flows of the area. After the berm is constructed, all basins "downstream" of the berm, including sub-basins 304, 405, and 406, will have "significantly lower flood elevations than the 10, 25 and 100- year storm event." That is to say, existing flooding to the north and east of the proposed berm will be lessened. To the extent that additional impoundment of water behind the berm will occur, or flooding beyond the berm may occur during a 100-year storm event, the County will acquire easements from local property owners to store the additional water. Until the aquisition of land occurs, construction cannot begin. There is one already disturbed wetland area near the proposed construction area. No mitigation is required, however, since the impact will be temporary and the area is expected to naturally revegetate itself. There will be no adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, or adjacent wetlands. Neither will the project create any other environmental concerns. While there will be some impact to upland trees caused by the impounded water, under existing District rules, that impact cannot be used as a basis to deny the permit. Based on generally accepted engineering principles, the project is capable of being effectively performed and can function as proposed. Also, the project can be effectively operated and maintained. The County has the resources to undertake the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. The greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence supports a finding that the County has given reasonable assurances that all applicable criteria for the issuance of a permit have been met. Petitioners' Objections At hearing, Petitioners contended that the overflow structures for the berm would alter the natural flow of water, and increase the flow of water to the east of the proposed project, where several Petitioners reside. As previously noted, however, the more credible evidence shows that the project will not increase the natural flow of water to the east of the berm. More specifically, expert testimony demonstrated that the regular flow through each weir in the post-development condition will not be adversely greater than what occurred during the pre- development condition. Petitioners also contended that the wetlands will be negatively impacted by the project. Contrary expert testimony by witness Defoe established, however, that there will be no permanent adverse impacts to wetlands, fish, or wildlife if the permit is approved. Petitioners next contended that the process was flawed because very few on-site inspections of the project area were made by District and County personnel, especially during the rainy season, before the application was preliminarily approved. There were, however, on-site inspections by District and County staff and consultants, and it was not shown that the lack of additional inspections affected the validity of their studies. A further contention was made at hearing that the information supporting the application was insufficient and that more study, including soil boring tests, should have been made. As to additional soil boring tests, the evidence shows that it is not a common engineering practice to perform soil testing throughout the entire area that will be submerged. Therefore, the existing tests were adequate to support the engineering assumptions. Further, even if there were some infirmities in the data and assumptions used and made in the 1989 Dames and Moore report, as alleged by Petitioners, the errors or omissions were minor, they were subject to later refinement by professional engineers, and they did not materially affect the overall validity of the current application. Finally, the application file contains uncontradicted technical information supporting the issuance of the permit. Petitioners' other concerns, while sincere and well- intended, are not relevant to the permitting process. For example, a concern that the construction of a berm will decrease nearby property values, even if true, is not a consideration in the permitting process. Similarly, Petitioners' valid concern that some nearby upland trees will be damaged if water levels rise for a prolonged period of time is not a basis under existing District rules to deny the permit. At the same time, whether the project is cost-effective and the best alternative for alleviating flooding conditions in the area are political decisions for the County, and thus they are not in issue in this proceeding. Finally, Petitioners have pointed out that the County has not completed acquisition of the necessary easements for the project, and that until this is done, a permit should not issue. However, the District has specifically provided as a condition precedent to any construction work that the County finalize ownership or control for all property where water levels will be raised by the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting Hernando County's application for Standard General Environmental Resource Permit No. 449342.01. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675, SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: E. D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Chester Bradshaw 18520 Bradshaw Road Dade City, Florida 33523 Richard L. Silvani 24419 Lanark Road Brooksville, Florida 34601 Margaret M. Lytle, Esquire 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Robert Bruce Snow, Esquire 20 North Main Street, Room 462 Brooksville, Florida 34601
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners, Jerome Silcox and Shannon Silcox have applied for an OSDS permit seeking authorization to install a septic tank and drainfield sewage treatment and disposal system on their lots 311 and 312 of Suwannee Shores Edition, NO. 2 subdivision. The property generally is located in the town of Suwannee, Florida in Dixie County near the point where the Suwannee River empties into the Gulf of Mexico. The property is located at "river mile 3." Prior to purchasing the property the applicants had made inquiry with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department)(HRS) concerning the acceptability of using an existing septic tank and drainfield system already on the property. That inquiry was made on or about June 29, 1989. A Department representative for Dixie County, inspected the site and issued an opinion to the Petitioners that the existing septic tank was adequate to accommodate a one bedroom residence. The Petitioner subsequently decided to construct a residence on the property for a residence containing approximately three bedrooms. Accordingly they made application through the Dixie County Health Department of HRS for a permit to authorize installation of a 750 gallon septic tank and drainfield treatment and disposal system for the property. The environmental health officer for the Dixie County Health Department of HRS visited the property on March 15, 1990. After examination of the property the health officer determined that the construction of a septic tank system employing a three foot mound above the natural surface grade of the property would be adequate to serve the residence proposed to be constructed on the lots and would comport with the permitting rules, in his opinion. The health officer required that the applicants submit a survey identifying the elevation of their property at the installation site and required them to secure a determination from the Suwannee River Water Management District (District) concerning the elevation of the ten-year flood plain with respect to the property and particularly the installation site. The applicants obtained a survey of the property by Hubert H. Raker, a registered land surveyor. He established the benchmark elevation for the installation site and, based upon that elevation, determined that the actual elevation of the surface grade of the property at the installation site was 4.98 feet above mean sea level (MSL). On or about March 7, 1990 the applicants received a "flood elevation information report" from the District. That report stated that the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River at the installation site was 17 feet above MSL. The report also stated that the property was not located within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River. The report of the District concerning flood elevations as well as the elevation survey by Mr. Raker were submitted to the Department's Dixie County office. Thereafter it was reviewed by a different environmental health officer and ultimately the environmental health director for the Department issued a denial letter. The letter denied the permit to install the OSDS because "the bottom surface of the drainfield trench shall not be subject to flooding based' on ten-year flood elevations". Thus the Department takes the position that the bottom surface of the drainfield trench or trenches in the system, as proposed, would be beneath the ten-year flood elevation and therefore in contravention of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. The health officer also opined that the Governor's Executive Order 90-14 had the effect of prohibiting any construction of mounded septic tank and drainfield systems within the ten-year flood elevation as well. Petitioner's property has a benchmark elevation of 5.48 feet above MSL and the actual elevation of the grade surface is 4.98 feet above MSL. The soils characterizing the proposed installation site are organic soils for six inches beneath the surface and then brown, fine sand down to twelve inches. At twelve inches beneath the surface is an impermeable barrier of lime rock. There was no "mottling" or evidence of damp soils, that relates to the possible level of the wet season water table, above that lime rock strata. There was no other indicia of the water table above that lime rock strata. Consequently, the wet season and normal water table levels are beneath the lime rock strata which occurs twelve inches subsurface. The Petitioners proposed, and Mr. Fross acknowledged iii his testimony, that mounding the system proposed to be installed, by placing it in a filled mound of at least 36 inches height above the existing grade level of the lot would be environmentally preferable to installing a septic tank and drainfield system in the natural surface and subsurface of the lot in question, in terms of better protecting the ground and surface waters in the vicinity of the site from degradation through improperly treated sewage effluent. Since the water table elevation is beneath the lime rock strata, which is twelve inches subsurface, if a 36 inch mound were installed on the site for the drainfield trenches or absorption beds, and if appropriate "slight or moderately limited" soils were used in the construction of the mound, a sufficient spatial differential of slight to moderate limited soils would exist for the required 24 inches beneath the bottom surface of the drainfield trenches and above the water table level. Thus a mounded system is a possible alternative, however, the Petitioners did not adduce sufficient evidence of technical data to show that such a system would indeed work properly in terms of having a sufficient, unobstructed land surface surrounding the mound in order to comport with the regulatory requirements in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. However, from the standpoint of having sufficient slight to moderate limited soils beneath the drainfield trenches if such a mound were used, assuming that the appropriate soils were used in construction of the mound and assuming that sufficient lot space is available to include the septic tank itself in the mound at an appropriate height above the existing grade and the limerock strata, it would appear that such a system would work adequately so as to protect the public health, the health of the applicants themselves and to prevent degradation of ground or surface waters. The technical details necessary to show that such a system would correctly operate on these lots, however, was not placed into evidence. There is no dispute, however, that the lot size involved is adequate and the site plan in evidence as Petitioner's exhibit 3 indicates that there is sufficient overall surface space on the two lots in question to accommodate such a mounded system. Thus, if the ten-year flood elevation obstacle to permitting did not exist it would seem that a mounded system could be designed and constructed so as to meet the regulatory requirements of Chapter 372, Florida Statutes and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioners also suggest that an aerobic septic tank-drainfield system might effectively treat and dispose of the sewage effluent at issue in a manner so as to protect public health and the ground and surface waters involved. An aerobic system functions differently from the normal OSDS system, which is anaerobic in nature, because it functions with aerobic bacteria which require oxygen in order to grow and digest and convert sewage effluent into bacteriologically safe effluent. An aerobic system requires the use of an electric motor and pump system in order to force air into the septic tank so that aerobic bacteria can perform their function. The problem with aerobic systems, although they more effectively treat sewage effluent through a septic tank and drainfield system, is that they are subject to mechanical failure and monitoring the mechanical efficiency and proper operation of such a system can be a problem. If the mechanical motor and pump system malfunction, the system will still function as a normal septic tank and drainfield system and thus remove effluent from the residence so that the homeowner will not necessarily have to immediately effect repairs. This can cause inadequately treated effluent to be dispersed into the ground or surface waters or on the surface of the lot, posing a health hazard and potential degradation of ground or surface waters. The evidence offered by Petitioners does not establish how such a system could be made to work effectively and no detailed technical evidence was offered by Petitioners to show what type of such an aerobic system could be installed which would effectively operate at the installation site and under the circumstances where it might be proposed to be used. This is a possible alternative to the conventional subterranean system at issue but would require further evidence, which was not adduced, to show that it can be safely and effectively employed at the site in question. In any event, however, the proposed installation site was not shown to be above the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River. Because of this, neither a mounded system nor an aerobic system has been shown to be capable of being installed at the site and comporting with the rules contained in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code and, particularly, Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. That is, with either system in mind, it has not been demonstrated that the bottom of the drainfield trenches or absorption beds at issue, as envisioned in this rule, would be above the ten-year flood elevation. A report prepared by the Suwannee River Water Management District and submitted by the applicants with their application shows a ten-year flood elevation of 17 feet above MSL. The Petitioners adduced the testimony of Mr. William Pierce, an engineer with the District, in their case in chief. Mr. Pierce testified that this 17 foot elevation is indeed the elevation shown in the data contained in the computer model generated and maintained by the District. The information by which this computer model was designed and which resulted in the 17 foot elevation comes from U.S. Army Corps of Engineer data along with data from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Hydraulic Engineering Center in Davis, California, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration. The storm surge component of that ten-year flood elevation came from data generated by a privately contracted study prepared for the federal agencies and supplied to the District. Through the testimony of Mr. Pierce, the Petitioners established substantial doubt as to the accuracy of the 17 foot ten-year flood elevation. Mr. Pierce established that the ten- year flood elevation figure for the Suwannee River decreases as it is measured from the waters of the Suwannee River many miles upstream from the town of Suwannee, when measurement proceeds in a downstream direction. Thus, for instance, the ten-year flood elevation at the town of White Springs, at river mile 177, upstream from the coast, is approximately 81 feet. The ten-year flood elevation at the location known as "Wilcox" some 33 miles above the confluence of the Suwannee River with the Gulf of Mexico is approximately 16 feet. This decreasing ten-year flood elevation figure, as progressively measured downstream toward the coast, is a natural incident to the fact that the elevation of the land surrounding the Suwannee River declines in elevation above sea level as the land elevation is measured going in a downstream or coastward direction. That is, as the surrounding upland elevation declines the waters of the Suwannee River, in a flood event, can spread outward from its channel over a wider area, due to being less confined by higher upland elevations, which results in the flood elevations being lower. Thus one would logically expect that if the ten-year flood elevation at Wilcox, 33 miles upstream, is 16 feet above MSL, then the flood elevation at the town of Suwannee, where the lots in question lie, at river mile 3, would be substantially lower. However, in the District's flood elevation data the element of "storm surge" is additively calculated into the ten-year flood elevation figure. This is designed to take into account surges caused by storms pushing water inland on the Gulf Coast where the Suwannee River makes its confluence with the Gulf of Mexico. According to the District's data and Mr. Pierce's testimony this would effectively raise the actual ten-year flood elevation level. The problem with the 17 foot, ten-year flood elevation figure is that Mr. Pierce was unable, in his testimony, to show how and why the storm surge closely correlates with the river flood stage to produce a 17 foot ten-year flood elevation at river mile 3 of the Suwannee River where these lots lie. Moreover, he was unable to establish in his testimony how the District's flood elevation calculations and figures take into account any probability of the storm surge occurring simultaneously with a ten-year flood event for the Suwannee River or what they probability might be. Thus the Petitioner's evidence casts substantial doubt that the 17 foot, ten-year flood elevation figure is accurate and comports with logic. Thus it can be found herein that the 17 foot ten- year flood elevation figure has not been shown to be accurate. The problem remains however that the Petitioner must establish that the installation site in question does not occur beneath the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River. The Petitioner adduced no evidence to establish what the ten-year flood elevation might actually be nor that the installation site lies above that elevation. Consequently, sufficient proof has not been established to comport with the requirement that the bottom surface of the drainfield trenches or absorption beds lies above the ten-year flood elevation so as to show that the installation site is not subject to inundation. The Petitioner did not formally apply for a variance from the permitting statute and rules, upon having the permit application initially denied by the Department. This is because the Department advised them, in effect, that it would be futile to apply for a variance and to avail themselves of the Department's informal variance procedure because of the effect of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, entered on January 17, 1990. That Executive Order incorporated recommendation 36 of the "Suwannee River Task Force" report, which recommended that all OSDS installations lying beneath the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River be prohibited and that grant of any permits for OSDS installations be done in strict compliance with pertinent permitting statutes and rules. According to the Department, the Executive Order, in effect, directed that all on- site sewage disposal systems beneath the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River be prohibited. The Department thus takes the position that the entry of that Executive Order took away its discretion to entertain any variance applications for properties lying beneath the ten-year flood elevation and advised the Petitioners to avail themselves of the formal hearing procedure before the Division of Administrative Hearings rather than seek a variance through the Department's own internal variance procedure. In any event, and somewhat parenthetically, it should be pointed out that although the Petitioners will definitely experience a hardship if a permit or variance is not granted, because of the money expended to purchase the lot which will be largely unusable without the ability to establish a residence thereon by installing an OSDS system, it has not been proven that no reasonable alternatives exist to the installation of a conventional OSDS subterranean type system on the property. The Petitioner proposed installation of a mounded system, which has some promise as a reasonable alternative system, although sufficient evidence was not adduced to establish that such a system would adequately treat and dispose of the effluent in question without causing a public health hazard or degradation of ground and surface waters, as discussed above. Nor was sufficient evidence of a lack of adverse environmental effects, in this regard, as to establish any other type of reasonable alternative approach to treatment and disposal of the expected sewage effluent. Thus one element of the variance criteria cited below has not been met. It has neither been established that the installation of an OSDS system of the conventional subterranean type nor any other type would not have an adverse impact on public health or would not cause degradation of the ground or surface water involved. Thus, to the extent the question of entitlement of a variance can be entertained in this proceeding, the elements required for the grant of a variance have not been established by Petitioner's proof, although there is a substantial likelihood that in a variance proceeding, with appropriate proof, the efficacy of the installation of a mounded system in relation to the requirements of the Department's rules could be established, aside from the question of the ten-year flood elevation.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the application of the Petitioners for an onsite sewage disposal system permit. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1990, 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 3rd day of January, 1991. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 - 15 Accepted. Rejected as irrelevant since this is not a rule challenge proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. - 29 Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 - 4 Accepted. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. - 13 Accepted. 14 Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Moeller, Esquire P.O. Drawer 1419 Cross City, FL 32628 Frances Childers, Esquire HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, is an agency of the State of Florida charged with carrying out the mandates of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules contained in the Florida Administrative Code promulgated thereunder. Respondent, MRT, is a real estate investment trust organized under the laws of the State of Maryland and authorized to do business in Florida. Royal Oaks Development Corporation is a Florida corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Maryland Realty Trust. MRT is developing a parcel of land in Sections 33 and 34, T-2-N, R-1-E, Leon County, Florida, and Section 4, T-1-N, R-1-E, Leon County, Florida, of which approximately 60 acres has already been developed as Royal Oaks Unit No. 1, a recorded subdivision pursuant to Chapter 177, Florida Statutes. The balance of the 120 acres is yet to be developed, and is the subject of this proceeding. The specific activity for which the application for dredge and fill permit was submitted consists of improvements to a drainage-way running from the south boundary of the MRT property to a pond designated in the application as "Pond II", together with a drawndown structure, referred to as "S-15". Following submittal of the permit application, DER notified MRT of the receipt of the application and advised that both a permit under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and a license for stormwater discharge under Rule 17-4.248, Florida Administrative Code, would be required. Following review by the Department, during which MRT was notified that the application in its original form would not be received favorably, MRT, on August 21, 1980, revised its application and based on such revisions, the Department, on October 10, 1980, notified MRT of its intent to issue the permit and license sought. As indicated in the Intent to Issue, DER has asserted jurisdiction over the dredge and fill activities in question contending that they are contemplated to either be in or connected to "waters of the State". Specifically, the Department's Intent to Issue states as follows: The Department has permitting jurisdiction under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, Section 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code, and Public Law 92-500 over dredge and fill activities conducted in or connected to certain waters of the State. The specific pond in question and the pond to which it is connected constitute waters of the State over which the Department has dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction as defined in Section 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code. The project is not exempt from permitting procedures. Pond II is approximately four acres in size and consists of a western lobe of approximately one acre. Pond II is connected to the north to a waterbody known as Pond III/Foxcroft Lake". The vegetation in the south portion of Pond III is typical of fresh water vegetation that grows in submerged or wet areas. The vegetation in an existing well-defined channel between Pond II and the proposed location of structure S-15 is also comprised of water-tolerant species. Sagittaria subulata was observed in the channel in the area proposed for location of S-15. This plant species cannot tolerate dry conditions, indicating that water is present in the channel under most conditions. Further, no upland or pioneer species were observed in the channel, which also is indicative of the fact that the channel usually contains water. Water flows from Pond II to Pond III approximately 90 percent of the time. The base flow in the channel is approximately 2 cubic feet per second. Based on the storage capacity of Pond II, it is probable that flow occurs out of Pond II into Pond III under most conditions. Although 88.0 feet mean seal level is the design normal pond elevation expected after construction of S-15, the present observable elevation of Pond II appears to be between 89.94 and 90.09 mean sea level. Observations of the types of vegetation surrounding Pond II supports the conclusion that the existing normal level of Pond II is approximately 90.0 mean sea level. Pond III is a waterbody of approximately four acres in size and is a portion of the continuation of a larger 10 acre body of water referred to in this proceeding as "Foxcroft Lake". Pond III was the subject of a prior Department dredge and fill permit in which it was determined that Pond III constituted waters of the State subject to the dredge and fill jurisdiction of the Department. Pond III/Foxcroft Lake is a lake owned by more than one person, of approximately 14 acres of surface area and a maximum average depth of approximately 3 feet. Pond III/Foxcroft Lake discharges to and is connected directly to a waterbody known as Long Pond. Long Pond in turn is eventually connected to and discharges into Lake Lafayette. Without any mechanisms designed to treat the pollutants expected to be generated by the proposed project, the development by MRT of its 120 acres of property could reasonably be expected to have a significant adverse impact on the waters of Pond II, Pond III and Foxcroft Lake. Scientific studies demonstrate that potential pollutants generated from developments - single family, multi-family and commercial - have a significant impact on receiving waters if not treated before discharged. The project as presently designed will correct an existing source of pollution by removing sediment which is entering Pond II from the south from Shannon Forest Subdivision. This sediment has been deposited in the drainage- way between Shannon Forest and Pond II and is damaging and severely stressing biota in the drainage-way. This sediment has filled a portion of Pond II and could be expected to eventually discharge into Pond III/Foxcroft Lake. The pre-development rate of flow off the project site as it presently exists is approximately 600 cubic ft. per second. The project as proposed will reduce the rate of flow by 50 percent, to approximately 300 cfs. The project incorporates five mechanisms or abatement controls to treat contaminants customarily contained in stormwater: a grassed conveyance system; retention of natural vegetated areas; energy dissipators; sediment traps; and added storage. Grassed conveyance systems treat stormwater by the assimulation by plant communities of dissolved pollutants, such as nutrients, and the deposition of suspended pollutants that have absorbed to the sediment particles. Approximately 50 percent of the conveyance system in the Phase II development will be grassed swales and re-vegetated ditches. As many swales as possible will be used to convey the stormwater from the discharge at the street outfalls to the ponds. The main drainage ditch through the property will also be grassed. Natural vegetated areas to be left around the existing ponds will treat stormwater by assimilation and filtration in the same manner as the grassed swales and ditches. A one-acre parcel of wetlands is to be left between the southern most portion of the drainage-way and Pond II as described in MRT Exhibit No. 8 and in the revised permit application of August 21, 1980. The vegetation downstream of Pond II between the pond and control structure S-15 will also be left intact. Virtually all the vegetation bordering Pond II and Pond III will be left in place. Five energy dissipaters are to be constructed upstream of Pond II. These structures are designed to reduce the existing sedimentation and erosion problems by reducing the energy gradient and allowing the deposition of sediment, upon which absorbed pollutants have attached, into the accompanying sediment traps. Sediment traps are also to be constructed upstream of Pond II. Sediment traps treat stormwater by reducing the velocity gradient. Sediment and the pollutants absorbed to the sediment will drop out due to insufficient velocity. Storage will be increased in Pond II by the construction of control structure S-15 and by the planned excavation of Pond II. Added storage has a beneficial effect on water quality in that it allows additional sediment particles to settle out, allows additional time for the vegetation on the edge of the ponds to assimilate dissolved pollutants such as nutrients, and reduces the peak discharge velocity. The project is in the public interest in that it will alleviate an existing stormwater problem. In terms of probable efficiency, physical needs and costs, the project represents the best available treatment alternative. Based on existing technology, the system designed for this project is the most effective system within reasonable costs. The effectiveness of the stormwater treatment system depends on the presence of vegetation and will require less maintenance and attendant costs. There does not presently appear to be any local government effort to implement stormwater controls to address this problem or source. Petitioner submitted no evidence of such local government efforts. The system proposed by MRT will mitigate not only the effects of the discharge generated by the proposed development of the 120 acres of property owned by MRT, but will also mitigate the effects of an existing source of stormwater pollution. The system, as designed, is sufficient to afford the Department reasonable assurance that stormwater quality standards will not be violated. The parties stipulated that, should the requested permit and license be issued, they should incorporate the following additional condition: Roads and drainage facilities are to be owned and maintained by Leon County. All paving and drainage shall be done in accordance with the County's standards, details and specifications. In addition, MRT has instituted civil litigation against Leon County concerning the property involved in this proceeding. One of the allegations of MRT's complaint is that Leon County has, through the action amounting to inverse condemnation, acquired a drainage easement over the property for which MRT is now seeking the dredge and fill and stormwater permits. The plans submitted to DER by MRT with its application contain the following: When the construction plans for Phase III of the Royal Oaks development are prepared, these plans shall be submitted to the Department for evaluation for compliance with the original stormwater review.
