Findings Of Fact Respondent/applicant, James L. Carpenter (applicant or Carpenter), is the owner of upland property bordering on and contiguous to a man-made lagoon in Vaca Key near Marathon, Florida. The property is also adjacent to an artificial man-made canal which connects the lagoon to the open waters of Florida Bay. The lagoon and canal are classified as Class III waters of the State while Florida Bay is a Class III Outstanding Florida Water. A more precise location of the property is Section 9, Township 66 South, Range 32 East, Monroe County, Florida. By application dated June 23, 1987 applicant sought the issuance of a dredge and fill permit from respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), authorizing the construction of an "L" shaped 125'x8' commercial dock with a 10'x8' access walkway waterward of mean high water (MHW) in the canal. The dock and walkway will be located on the property described in finding of fact 1. According to the application, Carpenter owns several "landlocked residences" in the vicinity of the proposed dock and desires to provide dockage for residents who rent his houses. Because of DER concerns that shading might affect photosynthetic capabilities in the vicinity of the project, applicant agreed to revise his application. This revision was made on December 21, 1987 and reduced the dock size to 102'x6' while the access walkway was increased slightly to 12'x8'. Thus, the dock will extend eight feet into the canal beyond the MHW. On January 5, 1988 DER's district office issued an Intent to Issue a permit subject to seven specific conditions incorporated in the permit. This prompted the filing of a petition by petitioner, Lillian Berdeal (Berdeal), who owns upland property bordering on and contiguous to the lagoon, canal and Florida Bay. She operates a commercial seafood business directly across the canal from Carpenter. According to her petition, Berdeal asserts that Carpenter's dock would adversely affect navigation in the canal and the health, safety and welfare or the property of others. The water body in question is a man-made canal facing to the north and providing an outlet for the lagoon to Florida Bay. The lagoon, which measures approximately 150'x100', is fairly well developed. On the east and southeast side of the lagoon lie an outdoor restaurant and Carpenter's boat rental business. Petitioner's seafood processing operation lies on the west and southwest sides of the lagoon and lagoon entrance. Photographs of the area have been received in evidence as DER exhibits 1 and 2 and petitioner's exhibit 1. Presently, there are five finger piers (docks) in front of Berdeal's property at the narrowest point of the canal. These piers are directly across the canal from Carpenter's proposed dock addition. They extend out eight feet perpendicular to the shoreline and are now used by commercial fishermen for docking purposes while using Berdeal's facility. Approximately thirty or forty boats use the finger piers during fishing season (August - May) while up to twenty may use them in the off-season (June - July). Berdeal described those boats as ranging from thirty to forty-five feet in length and having beams up to, but not exceeding, sixteen feet. However, vessels at petitioner's facility on the day of DER's inspection had an average beam of ten feet. The evidence is conflicting as to the canal's width at its most narrow point. According to DER's expert, the minimum width is seventy-six feet, and this figure is accepted as being more credible than Berdeal's own measurement of sixty-three feet. If the project is constructed, Carpenter's dock, together with a boat having a ten foot beam, would use around eighteen feet of the channel at its most narrow width while Berdeal's facility, if used by the largest boat, would take up another twenty-three feet. This would still leave around thirty-five feet of channel for navigation purposes between the two docks at the canal's most narrow point. According to applicant's expert in navigation, James J. Morrison, who has piloted boats in the area for over thirty years, a boat may safely operate in the canal if it has five feet of water on each side. This margin of safety is sufficient in all weather conditions up to and including a small craft warning. If the project is approved, the necessary margin of safety would be available. It is noted also that there are no significant currents in the canal that would adversely affect navigation, and under normal weather conditions, the canal and basin are easily navigable. Petitioner presented the testimony of a commercial fisherman, Leonard Quasney, who expressed concerns that northerly winds periodically drive aquatic weeds and grasses into the lagoon and canal thereby impairing the ability of a boat to safely operate. These weeds are shown in photographs received as petitioner's exhibit 1. It was Quasney's contention that, coupled with the periodic influx of weeds, the addition of a dock at the canal's most narrow point will make navigation more hazardous. However, this theory was discounted by expert witness Morrison who pointed out that, while it is true that floating mats of weeds affect the ability of a person to handle a boat by making the boat's rudder and propeller action less responsive, they do not affect the ability to navigate the canal. In other words, as long as the margin of safety is available in the canal, the presence of the weeds would not hinder a ship's ability to enter and exit the lagoon. This testimony is accepted as being more credible on the issue, and it is found that the new dock will not create a navigational hazard as a result of the weeds. Berdeal is concerned also that the new dock would make it more difficult for fishermen to access her property and therefore cause economic harm to both her and the fishermen. However, this contention was not substantiated. The parties have stipulated that, with the following special conditions proposed by DER at hearing regarding limitations on commercial use, liveaboards and scraping boat bottoms, all water quality standards will be met: All temporary and permanent use of liveaboard or liveaboard type vessels for residential use is prohibited. All on site fueling activities are prohibited. All major vessel repair, such as hull scraping and painting, with the boat in the water is prohibited. Only private use of the dock is permitted. All double parking or rafting of boats along the dock is prohibited. General conditions common to all dredge and fill permits. The parties have stipulated that the "public interest" criteria in Subsection 403.918(2)(a)2. and 4.-7., Florida Statutes (1987), have been satisfied. In addition, a registered engineer has certified that the dock's construction and use will not have an adverse effect on the public health, safety and welfare or the property of others. Petitioner has applied for the issuance of a permit allowing the construction of additional docks at her facility. If the application is approved, these docks will be used for commercial purposes. The proposed impact of this project, and its cumulative impact on the area, was considered by DER in its evaluation of Carpenter's application. However, conditions to be included in Berdeal's permit will minimize any water quality or navigation impacts of the project, even on a cumulative basis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of James L. Carpenter for a dredge and fill permit be granted subject to those specific, special and general conditions imposed by the agency. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1988.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a multi-county water management district which was created by Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and which operates pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The District is the local sponsor for the federally-authorized "Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control" and as such, operates and maintains various water control facilities and impoundments in South Florida, as authorized and constructed by the Federal Government. The jurisdiction of the District encompasses 16 counties in southern and central Florida, from Marion County in the north to Monroe County in the south. Water Conservation Area 2A is one of several water conservation areas within Respondent's jurisdiction and is a part of the federally-authorized Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control. On April 13, June 2, August 10, September 26, October 19, and October 20, 1978, the Governing Board of the District held public hearings and workshop meetings to receive comments from the District staff and the general public concerning the proposed "draw down" or alteration of water levels in Water Conservation Area 2A. Notice of the September 26, 1978 public hearing was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume No. 4, No. 36, on September 8, 1978. By the terms of the notice, the purpose of the September 26th public hearing was: To provide interested citizens with an opportunity to express their opinions and hear testimony regarding the District's proposal to lower the water level in Conservation Area 2A, located in western Palm Beach and Broward counties. The purpose of the draw down is to con- solidate the bottom sediments so that a more flexible water schedule can be begun to preserve the natural Everglades ecology . . . . After considering information received from staff and the general public, the Governing Board entered its "Order" No. 78-12 dated October 20, 1978 containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. This "order" provided, in pertinent part: That the staff take appropriate measures to accomplish the following: A draw down from current high water levels will be initiated October 31, 1978, with the goal of reducing water levels in the central portion of the marsh to ground level by December 31 (about 11.2 feet msl). From this point, water levels shall be allowed to continue to recede to a minimum level of 9.5' by the end of May, 1979. Water levels will be allowed to rise to about 12.5' msl by October 31, 1979. That the staff take appropriate measures to regulate water levels in Conservation Area 2A between 12.5' and 9.5' msl as provided in Paragraph 1. until November of 1981. That the regulation of Conservation Area 2A be carried out in a flexible manner to insure maximum environmental benefits and that adjustments in water level fluctuations and stages may be made predicated upon the environmental response of the Conservation Area 2A ecosystem resulting from the previous year's hydroperiod. That the staff pursue such research and data collection as is necessary to fully document the conditions of the marsh throughout the three year duration of the project. No formal hearings pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, were requested as a result of the aforementioned workshop, public hearings or agency action embodied in the "order" of October 20, 1978. It is undisputed that Respondent did not comply with the requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, relating to rule making in issuing its Order of October 20, 1978. Petitioner, Joe Burgess, is the owner of Hinckle's Bait and Tackle Shop on State Road 84 in Broward County, approximately 12 miles from Conservation Area 2A. Petitioner Burgess derives approximately 60 to 70 percent of his business from customers who use Conservation Area 2A for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes. In addition, Petitioner Burgess personally uses Conservation Area 2A for hunting and fishing. Petitioner, Keith Finlayson, is an environmentalist who uses Conservation Area 2A for recreational purposes, including fishing, bird watching, observing animals in their natural habitats and flora identification. Petitioner Finalyson uses Conservation Area 2A for recreational purposes approximately two to three times per week. Petitioner, Concerned Citizens for the Everglades, Inc., is a not-for- profit Florida corporation, some of whose members presently use Conservation Area 2A for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes. Other members of the organization derive their living from businesses supported by revenues obtained from the general public directly attributable to "use" of Conservation Area 2A. One of the effects of the "draw down" will be to make certain portions of Conservation Area 2A inaccessible by boat during some periods of the year, thereby curtailing recreational and other use of the those areas. Water Conservation Area 2A, and other such areas within the jurisdiction of Respondent, is surrounded by levies and various water control structures and is operated independently of other water conservation areas, which are also surrounded by levies and water control structures. All of the water conservation areas within Respondent's jurisdiction are subject to different and independent water regulation schedules. The evidence establishes that it is not feasible to apply the same regulation schedule to all water conservation areas due to differences in topography. In fact, it is anticipated that a different regulation schedule for Water Conservation Area 2A will be developed after the current three-year draw down period is concluded. Although originally scheduled to commence on November 1, 1978, the "draw down" of water levels in Conservation Area 2A was delayed as a result of legal actions taken in state courts. As a result, the District did not actually begin the "draw down" until August, 1980.
Findings Of Fact On December 12, 1991, Petitioner applied to the Respondent for a permit/water quality certification to grade and level, in stages, approximately 20,000 square feet or 0.45 acres of lake front to remove and prevent the formation of berms and depressions in the exposed lake bottom adjacent to his property. The project site is located at 3955 Placid View Drive which lies along the shoreline of Lake Placid, a natural waterbody in Highlands County, Section 24, Township 37 South, Range 29 East. Lake Placid is not an aquatic preserve, and is not an outstanding Florida water. It has been designated as a Class III waterbody. Petitioner's unsubdivided lot lies at the western end of Lake Placid. The shoreline measures approximately 203 feet. The western lot line also measures 203 feet, and fronts on Placid View Drive. The water level of Lake Placid has receded in recent years which allows large expanses of what was historically lake bottom to become beaches, lawns, and areas of habaceous marsh. The specific project which the Petitioner proposes calls for the leveling of the berms and depressions which form on the exposed lake bottom from collected water, which stagnates and permits various noxious creatures, including mosquitoes, to breed in them. The berms and depressions are approximately six inches high or deep and between one and three feet wide, and generally extend the length of the shoreline. The proposed area affected is approximately 20,000 square feet or 0.45 acres of lake front, although Petitioner proposes to actually level a much smaller area in stages of approximately 2,000 square feet on an "as needed" basis. No material other than sod in the beach area is proposed to be brought from or removed to off-site locations. Petitioner is highly sensitive to mosquito bites. The area proposed for leveling was previously cleared of vegetation without authorization. Very little revegetation of the shoreline has occurred since the area was cleared. Vegetation colonizing the beach, at present, includes pennyworts (Centella asiatica and Hydrocotyle umbellata) and water- hyssops (Bacopa sp.) Blue green algae was observed in the depressions which have formed along the shore since the clearing. Fauna observed on-site included gulls (Larus sp.), small fish in the adjacent lake shallows, and water-boatmen (Order Hemiptera) in the depressions. An area landward of the wetlands considered here was also cleared previously and is proposed to be seeded. An adjacent, uncleared shoreline was vegetated with primrose willow (Ludwigia sp.), cattail (Typha sp.), flat sedge (Cyperus odorata), and other wetland species for an almost 100% plant coverage. The Petitioner proposes to use a small tractor in leveling of the shore which will cause turbidity in the lake water. No turbidity controls were proposed by the Petitioner. Petitioner failed to provide reasonable assurances that the turbidity caused by the earthmoving equipment in areas presently above water would not cause degradation of water quality in Lake Placid; would not contribute to the long-term degradation of water quality in the lake caused by upland runoff that would flow into the lake without benefit of retention or filtration by shoreland vegetation (freshwater herbaceous habitat) which would be permanently removed under Petitioner's proposal. Nutrients such a nitrogen and phosphorus and pollutants such as pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals commonly used in lawn and garden care would be included in the runoff, and would have an adverse impact on fishing and marine productivity in the lake. The project would have a minor adverse impact on erosion and soil stabilization in the area surrounding the lake. Petitioner has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest. Petitioner can mitigate the project by eliminating the use of heavy equipment and substitute hand equipment to smooth out ruts, berms and depressions in jurisdictional areas.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for Wetland Resource Regulation permit be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings ths 8th day of March, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Mr. Vincent J. Woeppel 3955 Placid View Drive Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Daniel H. Thompson Department of Environmental Regulation Acting General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The Parties and the Property. The Respondent, HORNE, owns or has options to purchase approximately 24.35 acres of real property at the southwest corner of U.S. Highway 41 and State Road 50 Bypass in Brooksville, Florida. The Petitioner, the ASSOCIATES, owns approximately 67.5 acres of real property to the south and downstream from the HORNE property. The ASSOCIATES' property is presently undeveloped. The HORNE property contains an existing Publix shopping plaza, a mobile home sales office and vacant lands. The Publix plaza was previously permitted by the DISTRICT before it was constructed. The Surface Water Permit Application On August 7, 1992, HORNE submitted its application for surface water permit No. 400317.02. The application sought approval to construct a surface water management system for a proposed new K-Mart store on HORNE's property. On November 3, 1992, the DISTRICT issued notice of final agency action approving issuance of permit No. 400317.02 to HORNE. The day before the original final hearing in this matter scheduled for March 1993, new information from a study called the Peck Sink Watershed Study came to light which rendered the project as then designed unpermittable. This information resulted in the surface water management system being redesigned. On April 1, 1993, the DISTRICT notified all of the parties that the redesigned surface water management met District rule criteria. This resulted in issuance of what became known as the April 1 submittal. On May 12, 1993, in response to concerns raised by the ASSOCIATES at depositions on May 10, 1993, HORNE produced the May 12 submittal and provided it to all parties on that same date. The changes in design reflected on the May 12 submittal related to lowering the pond bottoms one foot below the orifices and changing the contour lines on the outside of Pond 5A. On May 13, 1993, further minor changes were made to the permit materials. Specifically, the changes were: reflecting on the engineering worksheets the lowering of the pond bottoms accomplished on the May 12 submittal, correction of the contour line on the outside of Pond 5A and showing the amount of additional fill into the 100-year floodplain caused by the addition of the contour line to the outside of Pond 5A. In reviewing HORNE's application, the District applied the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code, and the Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications. Compliance with DISTRICT Permitting Criteria Water Quantity The main two areas considered by the DISTRICT in assessing water quantity in a closed basin are: attenuating the peak rate of discharge for the 25 runoff for the 100 The peak rate of runoff for this project for the 25 (2) cubic feet per second (cfs) less in the post-developed condition than in the pre-developed condition, as shown on the April 1 submittal. No changes were made between the April 1 and May 12 or 13 submittals relating to the peak rate of discharge. The difference in the volume of runoff between the pre-developed and post-developed condition during the 100-year storm is being retained on site, as shown on the April 1 submittal. Therefore, DISTRICT rule criteria for the peak rate and volume of runoff were met on the April 1 submittal. Lowering the bottoms of the detention ponds on the May 12 and 13 submittals resulted in additional post 100 system, as redesigned to retain this additional 100-year volume, exceeds the DISTRICT's 100 Floodplain Encroachment Under the DISTRICT's floodplain encroachment standards, any fill within the 100 out an equivalent volume of fill elsewhere on the property. HORNE's application satisfies the DISTRICT's floodplain standards. HORNE is filling 1.59 acre feet of the floodplain and creating 1.75 acre feet of compensation. The floodplain compensation will be above the seasonal high water table, as required by Section 3.2.1.4 of the DISTRICT's Basis of Review. The original, existing seasonal high water table will be lowered as a result of the excavation so that the entire floodplain compensation area will be above the seasonal high water table. Water Quality A wet detention system as proposed by HORNE is an acceptable means under the DISTRICT's rules of treating runoff for water quality purposes. The bottoms of the ponds, as shown on the May 12 submittal, are all at least one foot below the orifice elevations, as required by the Basis of Review. Thus, the project met all relevant DISTRICT water quality requirements as of the May 12 submittal. Operation and Maintenance DISTRICT rules require that reasonable assurances be provided that the surface water management system can be effectively operated and maintained. HORNE will be the operation and maintenance entity for this surface water management system. The DISTRICT's main concerns at the time of permit review are that the design of the surface water management system not be an exotic design, that the design insure that littoral zones can be established, that the system orifice can be cleaned, that the overall system will be stable and that there is a viable operation and maintenance entity. HORNE's project can be effectively operated and maintained. Remaining District Rule Criteria As stipulated to by the parties that the project will not cause adverse impacts to wetlands and will not diminish the capability of a lake or other impoundment to fluctuate through the full range established for it in Chapter 40D Additionally, the proof establishes that the project will not cause adverse impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows will not adversely affect the public health and safety; is consistent with the requirements of other public agencies; will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District; will not interfere with the legal rights of others as defined in Rule 17 Objections Raised by the ASSOCIATES at the Hearing Pond Slopes and Operation and Maintenance Contrary to the assertion that the pond slopes will not be stable and cannot be effectively operated and maintained, the pond side slopes at this project are going to be constructed out of a heavy clay type of soil. Sodded side slopes of 1:1, as proposed for three of the ponds, can be stabilized and effectively operated and maintained. Although there is no DISTRICT requirement that sodded side slopes be mowed, so on these slopes could, if necessary, be cut. In the event the side slopes were to erode, easy repair is possible. All of the ponds except one side of one pond have areas at least 20 feet wide and slopes no steeper than 4:1 where maintenance can be performed. With regard to the pond that does not have this characteristic, equipment can enter and perform necessary maintenance. Water Quality Treatment Concerns that at least a portion of the bottoms of the ponds need to be below the seasonal high water table and that circulation of the ponds needs to be maximized in order to meet water quality treatment criteria are misplaced since there is no requirement that the pond bottoms be below the seasonal high water table in wet detention systems such as the one at issue in this case. Further, the entire bottoms of the ponds are littoral zone and meet DISTRICT rule requirements that 35 per cent of the pond be littoral zone, concentrated at the outfall. Additionally, the ponds at issue maximize circulation through the location of points of inflow and outflow. Floodplain Mitigation Concerns that volume in the floodplain mitigation area is not available because of problems with the seasonal high water table are also misplaced. Specifically, the floodplain area encroachment requiring mitigation relates to Pond 5A. There is more than enough volume within the area which will be excavated to compensate for the area where the fill will be deposited. The seasonal high water table will be at or below the floodplain mitigation area after the required excavation takes place. Although the seasonal high water table will be lowered where the excavation or cut is made and later raised where the fill is placed, no adverse effects on the water table will result from such lowering and raising of the water table. Volume In Pond 5A Allegations that the May 12 and 13 submittals reflect that Pond 5A has less volume available than the modeling calculations contemplate are incorrect. The changes in the contour lines of Pond 5A on the May 12 and 13 submittals from what was shown on the April 1 submittal occurred on the outside of the pond. The volume on the inside of the pond was not reduced actually increased when the pond bottom was lowered for water quality purposes. In determining how much volume a pond is to have when it is constructed, the computer modeling figures take precedence over the scaled plan drawings. In this case, the computer modeling figures never changed after the April 1 submittal. HORNE submitted a computer model that calculated the volume of Pond 5A. The output data clearly reflects that the top of the bank was 82 feet. Publix's Status as an Existing Site Assertions that the Publix site should have been considered in its pre-developed state since there will be approximately one acre foot of volume of runoff, or possibly less, leaving the site without retention are without validity. The Publix plaza was permitted by the DISTRICT in 1985 and constructed in 1986. The amount of peak flow discharge and overall discharge is currently authorized by a valid MSSW permit. When the DISTRICT reviews a permit application, all existing permitted surface water management systems must be accepted in their present state. There is no authority in the DISTRICT's rules to consider an existing permitted site in its pre Even if the Publix site is considered in its pre project has only .02 of an acre foot more volume of runoff in its post-developed condition than in the pre Storage of 100-Year Volume Allegations that the amount of 100-year volume being retained on site in the ponds has been incorrectly calculated by the DISTRICT and HORNE are also invalid. The DISTRICT's rules require that the difference between the pre- and post-development volume for the 100-year storm be retained on site. In the ponds which are the subject of this proceeding, the 100-year volume is retained in the ponds below the orifice. This volume cannot leave the site through the orifice; it can only leave the site by percolation into the ground or evaporation into the air.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting HORNE's Application for Surface Water Management Permit No. 400317.02. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX The following constitutes my rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties Proposed findings submitted by Petitioners (Petitioner's proposed findings begin at paragraph number 13.) 13.-19. Accepted. 20.-30. Rejected, unnecessary. 31.-44. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer findings. 45.-47. Accepted. 48.-77. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer findings. 78.-79. Rejected, recitation of documents. 80.-84. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 85.-88. Rejected, unnecessary. 89.-93. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 94.-95. Rejected, unnecessary. 96. Accepted. 97.-98. Rejected, subordinate, weight of the evidence. 99.-100. Rejected, unnecessary. 101.-126. Rejected, subordinate. 127. Accepted. 128.-129. Rejected, unnecessary. 130.-135. Rejected, argument. 136.-144. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Respondents Joint Proposed Findings. 1.-56. Accepted, though not verbatim. 58.-59. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: David Smolker, Esquire Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn 2700 Landmark Centre 401 East Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Rodney S. Fields, Jr., Esquire Blain & Cone, P.A. 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Richard Tschantz, Esquire Mark F. Lapp, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact The Proposed Permit This case involves a 65-acre site in north Lee County owned by the City of Ft. Myers. At all material times, the land has been zoned under industrial- equivalent designations. By leases that are not part of this record, Ft. Myers has leased 21.4 acres of the 65 acres to various governmental agencies, including Lee County, Lee County Sheriff's Office, and possibly the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (formerly known as Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services). The following facilities are presently located on the 21.4 acres: Juvenile Detention Center, Lee County Stockade, Price Halfway House, Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, and Emergency Operations Center. By lease dated September 20, 1993, Ft. Myers leased the remaining 43.6 undeveloped acres to Lee County for a term of 50 years. This lease allows Lee County to use the 43.6 acres for $1 per year, but only for the operation of a Juvenile Justice Facility. Under Paragraph 20 of the lease, Ft. Myers may terminate the lease if Lee County ceases to operate the facility. Likewise, Lee County may terminate the lease if the Department of Juvenile Justice ceases to fund the County's operation of the facility. Under the lease, preference is given to juvenile residents of Ft. Myers. Paragraph 22 of the lease allocates liability to Lee County for claims or damages arising from released fuels, including from pipelines. The lease is not assignable without Ft. Myer's consent. By agreement dated December 17, 1993, Ft. Myers consented to the sublease of the entire 43.6- acre parcel to the Department of Juvenile Justice for the purpose of the construction of a juvenile residential commitment facility. Lee County receives no rent from the Department of Juvenile Justice. In Paragraph 10 of the agreement, the Department of Juvenile Justice agrees to maintain, at its expense, "all improvements of every kind . . .." Lee County must make any repairs to improvements if the Department of Juvenile Justice fails to do so. By subsequent agreement, Respondent Department of Management Services (DMS) became the agent for the Department of Juvenile Justice for the design, permitting, and construction of the juvenile justice facility. By Application for a surface water management permit executed June 16, 1994, DMS applied for a surface water management permit for the construction and operation of a 10.9- acre project known as the Lee County Juvenile Commitment Facility. This 10.9-acre project is part of the 43.6 acres leased to Lee County and subleased to the Department of Juvenile Justice. The application states that the existing 21.4 acres of developed sites, which are leased under separate agreements to different governmental entities, "will be permitted as is." The Staff Review Summary of Respondent South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) describes the purpose of the application as follows: This application is a request for Authorization for Construction and Operation of a surface water management system to serve a 10.9 acre Institutional project discharging to Six Mile [Cypress] Slough via onsite wetlands and road- side swales. The application also requests Authorization for Operation of a surface water management system serving a 21.4 acre existing facility and 32.7 acres to remain unchanged for a total permitted area of 65.0 acres. Staff recommends approval of both authorizations with conditions. The Staff Review Summary accurately states that the owner of the land is Ft. Myers. Of questionable accuracy is the statement that Ft. Myers leases to Lee County the 21.4 acres devoted to the five existing facilities. Although Lee County probably is a lessee of some of these parcels, the Lee County Sheriff's Office is the lessee (or perhaps sublessee) of at least two parcels. One of the other parcels may involve a state agency, again under either a lease or a sublease. The Staff Review Summary inaccurately states that the project developer is Lee County. The project developer is DMS or its principal, the Department of Juvenile Justice. The Staff Review Summary reviews the existing development on the 21.4 acres. The improvements consist of the 4.8-acre Juvenile Detention Center, 2.9- acre Price Halfway House, 4.7-acre Lee County Stockade, 5.1-acre Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, and 3.9-acre Emergency Operations Center. The Staff Review Summary states that the footer of the Juvenile Detention Center was inspected in February 1980. The site drains into a 1.2- acre retention pond, which was a natural pond dug out to accept the drainage from the Juvenile Detention Center. A small amount of surface flow drains from the Juvenile Detention Center to a perimeter swale that drains west into a ditch running along Ortiz Avenue. The Staff Review Summary states that the building permit for the Price Halfway House was issued in October 1982. The site drains into the 1.2-acre retention pond, which was apparently enlarged a second time to accept the additional flow. A small amount of the flow from the Price Halfway House also drains to the perimeter swale and west into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that the building permit for the Lee County Stockade was issued on May 25, 1976. SFWMD issued an exemption and a determination that no permit was required for two additions to the stockade in 1988 and 1989. For the additional impervious surface added by these additions, one inch of water quality treatment was provided. After the abandonment of a pumping system, drainage of the stockade site consists of water building up in existing onsite ditches and sheet flowing into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary adds that a small retention area constructed at the southeast corner of the site treats stormwater from the stockade and the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department. The summary adds that a small amount of stormwater drains north into an exterior swale that drains into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that a building permit was issued for the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department in August 1977. Stormwater from the site sheetflows to exterior swales north and south of the building. When the swales fill up, the water flows into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that a building permit was issued for the Emergency Operations Center on October 11, 1977. Drainage from the center flows directly into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. Under "Water Quality," the Staff Review Summary reports that SFWMD "did not require compliance with discharge rate or criteria" based on Section 1.6, Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the [SFWMD] March 1994 (Basis of Review), which contains guidelines issued by SFWMD for the construction and operation of surface water management systems. The summary adds that there have been no "water quality or quantity complaints associated with this site over the past 18 years since its initial construction." Noting that a surface water management permit is requested for the entire 65-acre parcel, the Staff Review Summary states that the above-described drainage systems for the five existing facilities are "operational and will remain as they now exist." Turning to the proposed development, the Staff Review Summary states that the remaining 43.6 undeveloped acres "will also be leased to Lee County by the City for the proposed commitment facilities." The facilities are accurately described as a 5.2-acre halfway house and a 5.7-acre bootcamp, both of which will be drained by internal drainage swales and culverts flowing into detention areas, which will discharge through a control structure into onsite wetlands leading to the Ortiz Avenue swale. Addressing designed discharge rates, the Staff Review Summary acknowledges that the bootcamp's discharge rate will exceed the allowable rate for a 25-year, three-day storm event. The allowable rate is .33 cfs, and the design rate is .37 cfs. The Staff Review Summary explains that this discrepancy results from the use of the minimum size orifice (three inches) in the control structure. Addressing water quality, the Staff Review Summary reports that commercially zoned sites are required to provide one-half inch dry pretreatment for water quality unless reasonable assurance can be provided that hazardous material will not enter the surface water management system. Determining that no hazardous material will be stored or generated on the site, SFWMD did not require the one-half inch dry pretreatment of runoff. Noting that no surface water management permits have ever been issued for any part of the 65-acre parcel, the Staff Review Summary recommends that, subject to the customary Limiting Conditions, SFWMD issue: Authorization for Construction and Operation of a 10.9 acre Institutional Project discharging to Six Mile Cypress Slough via onsite wetlands and roadside swales, Operation of a 21.4 acre existing facility and 32.7 acres to remain unchanged for a total permitted area of 65.0 acres. Limiting Condition 4 states that the permittee shall request transfer of the permit to the "responsible operational entity accepted by [SFWMD], if different from the permittee." Limiting Condition 8 adds: A permit transfer to the operation phase shall not occur until a responsible entity meeting the requirements in section 9.0, "Basis of Review . . .," has been established to operate and maintain the system. The entity must be provided with sufficient ownership or legal interest so that it has control over all water management facilities authorized herein. Special Condition 11 states: "Operation of the surface water management system shall be the responsibility of Lee County." The Permittee and the Entity Responsible for Maintenance The proposed permit consists of two authorizations. The first authorization is for the construction and operation of the surface water management system on the 10.9-acre parcel on which will be constructed the bootcamp and halfway house. The second authorization is for the operation of the existing surface water management system on the already-developed 21.4 acres and the unimproved surface water management system on the remaining 32.7 acres. There are two problems with the designation of Lee County as the entity responsible for maintaining the permitted surface water management systems. Basis of Review 9.1.B states: To satisfy [P]ermit [L]imiting [C]ondition [8], the Permittee must supply appropriate written proof, such as either by letter or resolution from the governmental entity that the governmental entity will accept the oper- ation and maintenance of all the surface water management system components . . .. The authorization for operation of the systems on the 21.4-acre and 32.7-acre parcels does not await any construction. Once the permit is issued, the authorization is effective. Therefore, all prerequisites to the designation must have been satisfied before the operation permit issues. For the 21.4-acre parcel, DMS has not provided reasonable assurance that Lee County is the lessee or sublessee of all of the parcels underlying the five existing facilities. In fact, it appears that Lee County is not the lessee or sublessee of all of these parcels. Even if Lee County were the lessee or sublessee of these five parcels, DMS has not provided reasonable assurance that Lee County has assumed responsibility for the maintenance of the surface water management system for the five parcels. Contrary to Basis of Review 9.1.B, there is no written agreement by Lee County to assume operational responsibility, nor is there even an actual agreement to this effect. SFWMD's rules sensibly require that written consent be obtained before the operation permit is issued. Likewise, DMS has failed to show that Lee County has agreed to assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the surface water management system for the 32.7-acre parcel. Again, SFWMD must obtain written consent before issuing the permit because no construction will precede operation for the surface water management system on this parcel. Unlike the situation as to the 21.4-acre parcel, the 32.7-acre parcel is leased to Lee County as part of the 43.6- acre parcel. But in the December 17, 1993, agreement, the Department of Juvenile Justice, not Lee County, assumes responsibility for maintaining all improvements, which arguably includes drainage improvements. As between Ft. Myers and Lee County, Lee County assumes secondary liability for the maintenance of all improvements. But the failure of the Department of Juvenile Justice to do so would likely represent a default under the agreement. In such a case, the lease and separate agreement probably would either be in litigation or Lee County would have terminated its obligations under the contracts. In either case, it is unlikely that Lee County would perform its secondary responsibility to maintain the drainage improvements, especially where it is receiving no rent from the Department of Juvenile Justice and priority is given to Ft. Myers juveniles in admission decisions. Construction will precede operation as to the 10.9- acre parcel so the parties have an opportunity, even after the construction and operation permit is issued, to secure the necessary written consent before the operation permit goes into effect. But similar deficiencies exist with respect to the 10.9- acre parcel because the same agreement imposes upon the Department of Juvenile Justice, not Lee County, the obligation to maintain improvements. An additional complication arises as to the 10.9-acre parcel. The Department of Juvenile Justice intends to contract with one or more private entities to operate the bootcamp and halfway house, so there is at least one more party that Lee County could claim was responsible for maintenance of the surface water management system. The question of who is responsible for maintaining the surface water management systems is important. Drainage quantities and directions can change if swales clog up with vegetation or other matter. In this case, one roadside swale in the area of the 21.4-acre parcel is blocked with vegetation. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the designated entity has assumed responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the existing systems or will assume responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the proposed system following its construction. Permit for Existing Development Section 1.6, Basis of Review, states: [SFWMD] issues construction and operation permits for proposed surface water management activities and operation permits for existing systems. The criteria herein are specifically designed to apply to proposed activities (construction and operation permits). Therefore, some of the criteria may not be applicable to the permitting of existing systems (operation permits). For example, in some cases, existing systems may not meet flood protection criteria. Criteria deviation for existing systems will be identified in staff reports. SFWMD has produced no evidence explicating the extent to which existing systems, such as the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels, are entitled to operating permits without meeting some of the criteria applicable to proposed systems, such as the system on the 10.9-acre parcel. There is nothing whatsoever in the record to explain why certain existing systems might not have to meet certain criteria, such as flood protection criteria. Except for the quantity deviation discussed below, there is nothing in the record disclosing the extent to which SFWMD has waived, or even considered the applicability of, certain or all criteria prior to the issuance of operation permits for the existing systems. In practice, SFWMD does not adhere even to the vague standards implied in 1.6. According to the SFWMD witness, the practice of SFWMD, as reflected in this case as to the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels, is to permit existing systems "as is, where is," as long as they have had no reported problems. There are numerous deficiencies in the "as is, where is" unwritten policy, apart from the obvious one that it conflicts with the assurance of 1.6 that only "some of the criteria may not be applicable" to existing systems. First, the record does not define what a "problem" is. Second, the record discloses no means by which reported problems are collected and later accessed, such as by a parcel index. The "as is, where is" policy is an abdication of the limited responsibilities that SFWMD imposes upon itself in 1.6, especially when applied to the present facts. The facts are straightforward. Neither Ft. Myers, Lee County, nor any other party has ever obtained a permit for any surface water management system, despite numerous improvements in the past 20 years requiring such permits, including the construction of a heliport, at which maintenance and refueling of helicopters takes place. In two relatively minor cases, discussed below, SFWMD erroneously determined that no permit was required. In one of those cases, the applicant, Lee County, candidly admitted the existence of a flooding problem. Based on the present record, neither DMS nor SFWMD has justified the issuance of an operation permit for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels based either on Basis of Review 1.6 or on the "as is, where is" unwritten policy. Construction of the five improvements on the 21.4 acres began between 1975 and December 1977 with construction of a portion of the Lee County Stockade building and parking, Emergency Operations Center building and parking, and a now- removed barn for the Lee County Sheriff's Office. At the same time, a lake was dug, probably for fill purposes. By the end of 1977, about 2.39 acres of the 21.4 acres were converted to impervious surface. From 1978 to March 1980, another 0.96 acres of the 21.4 acres were converted to impervious surface by the construction of a perimeter dike and road. During this period, construction commenced on the Juvenile Detention Center, adding another 1.63 acres of impervious surface. Between March 1980 and December 1981, additions were made to the Lee County Stockade building and the lake for an additional 0.45 acres of impervious area. Between December 1981 and March 1984, the Price Halfway House building and parking were constructed, adding another 0.79 acres of impervious surface. Between March 1984 and February 1986, a heliport facility and landing area were constructed for the Lee County Sheriff's Office, adding another 1.01 acres of impervious surface. Between February 1986 and February 1990, an additional 2.31 acres of impervious surface were added through additions to the Lee County Stockade and parking area, juvenile detention center, and Emergency Operations Center parking area. Between February 1990 and April 1993, another addition to the Lee County Stockade added 0.62 acres of impervious surface. An additional 0.17 acres of lake was excavated. During this time, applicable rules and statutes required permits for the construction of "works" affecting surface water, including ditches, culverts, and other construction that connects to, or draws water from, drains water into, or is placed in or across the waters in the state. The buildings, parking, other impervious surfaces, ditches, swales, dikes, lake excavations, and, at one point, addition of a now- abandoned pump all constituted "works" for which surface water management permits were required. In 1988, Lee County or Ft. Myers applied for an exemption for an addition to the Lee County Stockade. The basis for the claim of exemption was that the parcel consisted of less than 10 acres and the total impervious surface did not exceed two acres. Although rules in effect at the time required consideration of the contiguous 65 acres under common ownership and the total impervious surface for the 9.7-acre "parcel" exceeded two acres, SFWMD erroneously issued an exemption letter. The second instance involving a claim of exemption took place in 1989 when Lee County submitted plans for another addition to the Lee County Stockade, adding 0.51 acres of impervious surface. The submittal acknowledged a "flooding" problem, but promised a master drainage plan for the "entire site." SFWMD determined that no permit would be required due to the promise of a master drainage plan. No master drainage plan was ever prepared. The flooding problem precluded issuance of the operation permit on an "as is, where is" basis for the already-developed 21.4-acre parcel, even assuming that SFWMD adequately justified the use of this unwritten permitting procedure. In fact, SFWMD has not explained adequately its "as is, where is" permitting procedure or even the undelineated permitting criteria referenced in 1.6, Basis of Review. The 65- acre parcel is a poor candidate for preferential permitting of existing systems. The owner and developer constructed the existing systems in near total disregard of the law. The two times that the owner and developer complied with the permitting process involved small additions for which exemptions should not have been granted. In one case, SFWMD exempted the proposed activity due to its error calculating minimum thresholds as to the areas of the parcel and the impervious surface. In the other case, SFWMD exempted the proposed activity partly in reliance on a promised master drainage plan that was not later prepared. To issue operation permits for the existing systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels would reward the owner and developer of the 65-acre parcel for noncompliance with the law and provide an incentive for similarly situated landowners and developers likewise to ignore the law. Before issuing operation permits on systems that have received no comprehensive review and that have been added piecemeal over the years, SFWMD must evaluate the surface water systems on the entire 65-acre parcel to determine whether they meet all applicable criteria. The "as is, where is" unwritten policy has no applicability where there have been reports of flooding. If SFWMD chooses to dispense with criteria in reliance upon Basis of Review 1.6, it must be prepared to identify and explain which criteria are waived and why. Water Quality Basis of Review 5.2.2 provides that projects that are zoned commercial or industrial, such as the present one, must provide one-half inch of "dry" detention or retention pretreatment, unless reasonable assurances are provided "that hazardous materials will not enter the project's surface water management system." There is no existing or proposed dry detention on the 65 acres. The existing development includes the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, which serves as a heliport. The fueling and maintenance of helicopters means that contaminants may enter the stormwater draining off the site. The functioning of the surface water system on this site is therefore of particular importance. There also may be more reason to question the functioning of the surface water system on this site. It is south of the Lee County Stockade, where flooding has been reported. The heliport site has also been the subject of more elaborate drainage improvements, such as the location of a small retention pond near the Stockade boundary and a pump, the latter of which has since been abandoned. The existing system on the 21.4-acre parcel, as well as the existing and proposed systems on the remainder of the 65 acres, require dry pretreatment for reasons apart from the presence of the heliport. The materials likely to be used with the existing and proposed developments are similar to those found on residential sites. SFWMD and DMS contend that there is therefore no need to require dry pretreatment as to these areas. However, the existing and intended institutional uses, such as jails and bootcamps, represent an intensity of use that exceeds the use typical in areas zoned residential. This increased intensity implies the presence of typical residential contaminants, such as petroleum-based products or cleaning solvents, but in greater volumes or concentrations, if not also, in the case of solvents, different compositions. The lease addresses potential liability for released petroleum. In the absence of a showing that such hazardous materials are prevented from entering the runoff, SFWMD must require dry pretreatment for the systems occupying the entire 65-acre parcel. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the existing systems satisfy applicable water quality criteria or that the proposed system will satisfy applicable water quality criteria. Water Quantity The 65-acre parcel adjoins Ortiz Avenue on the west and property owned by Petitioners on the east and south that is undeveloped except for a borrow pit some distance from the 65- acre parcel. The parcel is roughly 1000 feet east- west and 2700 feet north-south. The proposed halfway house is at the north end of the parcel. The halfway house is situated between a proposed detention pond on the west and a recreation field on the east. A paved road divides the halfway house from the rest of the 65- acre parcel. South of the road are the Lee County Stockade on the west, which abuts Ortiz Avenue, and the Juvenile Detention Center on the east. A berm separates these two sites. The berm runs from the road along the west shore of the twice- enlarged 1.2- acre retention pond and the west boundary of the Price Halfway House, which is south of the Juvenile Detention Center. To the west of the berm, south of the Lee County Stockade, is the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department or heliport facility, which abuts Ortiz Avenue. South of the Aviation Department is an outparcel used by the Florida Department of Corrections that also abuts Ortiz Avenue. East of the outparcel is the proposed halfway house with a proposed detention pond west of the halfway house and south of the outparcel. The Emergency Operations Center, which abuts Ortiz Avenue, is south of the detention pond and surrounded on three sides by the 32.7 acres to be left undisturbed at this time. There are perimeter berms around all of the parcels except for the Juvenile Detention Center and Price Halfway House, which are served by a single berm, and the Emergency Operations Center, which appears not to be bermed. The prevailing natural drainage is not pronounced either by direction or volume because the land is nearly level. The natural direction of drainage is to the south and west and remains so on Petitioners' land to the east and south and the undisturbed 32.7 acres to the south. The variety of drainage directions within the remainder of the 65- acre parcel reflects the extent to which berms, swales, ponds, pumps, roads, buildings, parking areas, and other works have been added to the northerly parcels. Runoff reaching the northern boundary of the 65 acres will be diverted due west around the proposed detention pond to the swale running along the east side of Ortiz Avenue. Runoff from the recreation field and halfway house building and parking area drain into the proposed detention pond, which releases water through a gravity control device to the Ortiz Avenue swale. There appears to be a connection routing some runoff from the south side of the recreation field to the Juvenile Detention Center, where it travels west in a roadside swale to the Ortiz Avenue swale. A little less than half of the area of the Juvenile Detention Center site drains into perimeter swales along the north and east borders and then to the west before emptying into the Ortiz Avenue swale. The remainder of the Juvenile Detention Center drains into the retention pond. The same is true of the Price Halfway House. The Lee County Stockade drains to each of its borders where the water then runs west along the north or south border to the Ortiz Avenue swale. The southern half of the Lee County Stockade site drains into the small retention pond at the northwest corner of the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department. Most of the runoff from the heliport facility runs to the southwest corner of the parcel, which is the location of the abandoned pump. From there, the runoff continues to the Ortiz Avenue swale. Very little if any of the runoff from the heliport enters the small retention pond on the northwest corner of the parcel. The bootcamp drains into the detention pond, which then releases water by a gravity control structure into a portion of the undisturbed 32.7-acres before entering the Ortiz Avenue swale. The Emergency Operations Center site drains in all directions away from the building and parking area, eventually draining into the Ortiz Avenue swale. Stormwater discharge rates from the proposed halfway house and bootcamp are 0.28 cfs and 0.37 cfs. Under SFWMD rules, the allowable maximums in the Six Mile Cypress drainage basin are 0.30 cfs and 0.33 cfs, respectively. SFWMD and DMS contend that the excessive discharge from the bootcamp is acceptable because the gravity control device for the proposed detention pond is of the smallest size allowable, given the indisputable need to avoid clogging and ensuing upstream flooding. Initially, SFWMD approved the discharge rates for the halfway house and bootcamp because, when combined, they did not exceed the total allowable value. However, this approach was invalid for two reasons. First, the two sites contain entirely independent drainage systems separated by several hundred feet. Second, after correcting an initial understatement for the value for the halfway house, the actual total exceeds the maximum allowable total. SFWMD contends that the slight excess is acceptable because of the inability to use a smaller orifice in the gravity control structure. However, the discharge quantity easily could have been reduced by design alternatives, such as enlarging the detention pond, which is mostly surrounded by land that is to be left undisturbed. The ease with which the minimum-orifice problem could have been avoided rebuts the presumption contained in Basis of Review 7.2.A that excessive discharge quantities are presumably acceptable if due to the inability to use a smaller orifice. Also, SFWMD and DMS have failed to show that the effect of the excessive discharge quantities is negligible, so the exception in the SFWMD manual for negligible impacts is unavailable. Neither SFWMD nor DMS provided any reasonable assurance as to the quantity of discharge from the 21.4 acres. Rough estimates suggest it is more likely that the quantity of discharge may greatly exceed the allowable maximum. SFWMD must evaluate the water-quantity issues before issuing operation permits for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7- acre parcels and a construction and operation permit for the 10.9-acre parcel. Obviously, if SFWMD determines that all water quantity criteria are met as to the existing systems, it may issue operation permits for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7- acre parcels. Otherwise, SFWMD must quantify the extent of the deviation and, if it seeks to waive compliance with any or all quantity standards in reliance on Basis of Review 1.6, evaluate the effect of the waiver and explain the basis for the waiver. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the existing systems satisfy applicable water quantity criteria or that the proposed system will satisfy applicable water quantity criteria. Impacts on Adjacent Lands Petitioners' property is impacted by the above- described drainage in two ways. First, Petitioners' property abutting the east side of Ortiz Avenue, south of the 65 acres, is especially vulnerable to flooding because the Ortiz Avenue swale is not a V-notch, but a half-V. The closed side of the swale prevents the water from running onto Ortiz Avenue. The open side of swale abuts Petitioners' property, so, if the swale's capacity is exceeded, stormwater will be released onto Petitioners' land. Second, perimeter berming along the east side of the 10.9- and 21.4- acre parcels will impede flow off the part of Petitioners' property located to the east of the 65 acres. A swale between the proposed halfway house and the Juvenile Detention Center will receive runoff from a small portion of Petitioners' property to the east and mostly north of the 65 acres. But there is no indication how much runoff from Petitioners' property can be so accommodated, how much runoff is impeded by the existing berm along the east side of the Juvenile Detention Center and Price Halfway House, and how much runoff will be impeded by the addition of new berms along the east side of the proposed halfway house and bootcamp. Basis of Review 6.8 requires that swales and dikes allow the passage of drainage from off-site areas to downstream areas. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a surface water management system will not cause adverse water quality or quantity impacts on adjacent lands. Neither SFWMD nor DMS obtained topographical information for Petitioners' property, as required by the Basis of Review. Rough estimates suggest that the proposed project may require Petitioners' property to retain considerably more stormwater from the design storm event of 25 years, three days. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed system would not have an adverse impact on Petitioners' upstream and downstream land.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying the application of the Department of Management Services for all permits for the operation and construction and operation of surface water management systems on the 65-acre parcel. ENTERED on June 19, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 19, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Proposed Findings of Petitioners 1-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as subordinate. 20-21: adopted or adopted in substance. 22-24 (first sentence): rejected as irrelevant. 24 (remainder)-46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-53: rejected as subordinate. 54-64 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 64 (second sentence)-66: rejected as subordinate. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Respondent SFWMD 1-10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 12: rejected as unnecessary. 13: adopted or adopted in substance. 14-15: rejected as subordinate. 16: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (except for last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 17 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18-32 (first sentence): rejected as unnecessary. 32 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 33: rejected as subordinate. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that the proposed ponds are wet detention. 35 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 35 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 36-45: rejected as unnecessary. 46-47: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 48-50 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 50 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 51-52, 55-57 (first sentence), and 58: adopted or adopted in substance, although insufficient water quality treatment. 53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 57 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 59: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 60: adopted or adopted in substance, except after "therefore." None of remainder logically follows from what is said in 1.6. 61: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 62-64: rejected as subordinate, unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, and irrelevant. 65: rejected as subordinate. 66: rejected as irrelevant. The burden is on the applicant and SFWMD, if it wishes to issue the permits, to provide reasonable assurances as to the adverse impact of the drainage systems. 67-68: rejected as subordinate. 69: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 70: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 71: rejected as repetitious. 72: rejected as irrelevant, except for past report of flooding, which is rejected as repetitious. 73: rejected as repetitious. 74: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 75 (first three sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 75 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 1 and 2: rejected as irrelevant insofar as the same result is reached with or without the permit modifications. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Respondent DMS 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: rejected as subordinate. 6: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8: rejected as subordinate. 9: adopted or adopted in substance, except that the excessive discharge was not "caused" by the minimum-sized orifice, only defended on that basis. 10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11-12: rejected as subordinate. 13: rejected as irrelevant. 14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15: adopted or adopted in substance, except for implication that no flooding problems existed. 16: rejected as recitation of evidence. 17: rejected as subordinate. 18: rejected as irrelevant. 19: adopted or adopted in substance, to the extent that separateness of systems is relevant. 20: rejected as subordinate. 21: adopted or adopted in substance, except for last sentence, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 22: rejected as subordinate. 23-30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, based on the present record. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and relevance. COPIES FURNISHED: Tilford C. Creel Executive Director South Florida Water Management District P. O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 Russell P. Schropp Harold N. Hume, Jr. Henderson Franklin P.O. Box 280 Ft. Myers, Fl 33902 O. Earl Black, Jr. Stephen S. Mathues Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Vincent J. Chen Toni M. Leidy South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, FL 33401
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina is entitled to be issued a permit by the Department of Environmental Protection for its project application submitted July 29, 1992, and revised November 15, 1993, to enlarge an existing marina and add new slips.
Findings Of Fact On July 29, 1992, Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina (Respondent Jupiter Hills) submitted an application to the Department of Environmental Protection (Respondent DEP) for a permit to enlarge an existing dock facility to 488 feet and to increase the existing 6 slips to 48 new slips. Respondent Jupiter Hills is located 0.7 miles north of Martin County Line Road, on U. S. Highway One, Indian River Lagoon, Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve, more particularly described as Martin County, Section 19, Township 40 South, Range 43 East, Indian River Lagoon Class III Waters. On November 15, 1993, Respondent Jupiter Hills amended its application at the request of Respondent DEP. The revised proposed project increases the dock facility from 6 slips to 18 slips, restricting 12 of the 18 slips for sailboat use; and proposes a new 149 foot long T-shaped pier from the existing pier, creating a total dimension of 180 feet by 60 feet. Further, Respondent Jupiter Hills proposes to remove four existing finger piers and 10 existing mooring pilings, to add eight finger piers and 34 new mooring pilings, and to place riprap along the existing seawall and new pier. The proposed project is located in an Outstanding Florida Water (a designated aquatic preserve), the Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve, which is a part of the Indian River Preserve. Significant water quality parameters for this proposed project include coliform bacteria, heavy metals, and oil and grease. Water quality standards for oil and grease are not being currently met. However, to address this noncompliance, Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to include, as part of this project, the installation of an exfiltration trench to trap grease coming from the uplands. This trench will improve water quality, causing a net improvement of water quality in the proposed project area. Stormwater from the area, including a portion of U. S. Highway One and parking areas within U. S. Highway One right-of-way, discharge directly into Respondent Jupiter Hills. This stormwater then drains directly into tidal waters. The exfiltration trench is designed to intercept up to three-fourths of an inch of the stormwater flow currently draining into the basin. The owners of Respondent Jupiter Hills will maintain the exfiltration trench. They have signed a long-term agreement with Respondent DEP for the maintenance of the trench, and the agreement is included in Respondent DEP's Intent to Issue. Water quality standards for fecal coliform are currently being met. The construction of the proposed project will not preclude or prevent continuing compliance with these standards. Respondent Jupiter Hills has proposed a sewage pump-out station which is not currently in the area and which will encourage boaters to pump boat sewage into the city treatment area instead of dumping the sewage into the water. The pump-out station will be connected to the central sewage system, but boaters will not be required to use the sewage pump-out station. However, since liveaboards are more likely to cause fecal coliform violations, Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed that no liveaboards will be permitted in the proposed project. Water quality standards for heavy metals are currently being met. The construction of the proposed project will not preclude or prevent continuing compliance with these standards. Respondent Jupiter Hills proposes to use construction materials which have not been treated by heavy metals. Also, because the proposed project area flushes in one tidal cycle, any additional metals from the boats themselves would be swept away quickly. The proposed project will not adversely impact or affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. Respondent Jupiter Hills has provided reasonable assurance that water quality standards will be met, continue to be met, and not violated. As a result, the public health and safety are protected. The proposed pump-out facility will reduce the incidences of illegal head discharges into the Jupiter Sound. Thus, this facility will benefit the health and safety of swimmers or others participating in water-related activities in the Jupiter Sound. The proposed project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to several measures designed to reduce any adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and the measures have been incorporated into the Intent to Issue. Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to not allow new power boats to dock at the proposed facility, which will prevent adverse affects on the manatee population in the area. Additionally, the proposed pump-out facility will improve the water quality, resulting in a benefit to fish and wildlife, including the Benthic habitat and seagrasses. Respondent Jupiter Hills has further agreed to install navigational signs, directing boaters away from manatees, and no wake signs, indicating the presence of manatees; these signs do not presently exist. Furthermore, Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to post signs directing boaters away from any seagrasses located in the proposed project area. Whether seagrasses in the proposed project area will be adversely affected is also a factor to be considered. Inspections and surveys of the proposed project area in December 1992 and mid-March 1993 revealed one patch of Halophila decipiens and Halophila johnsonii at the 100 foot contour but no seagrasses within the footprint of the proposed project. A survey of the area in late April 1994 revealed some seagrasses in the proposed project area but no seagrasses within the footprint of the proposed project. In September 1995, an examination of the area revealed Halophila decipiens just waterward of the existing slips down to the southern property boundaries 20 to 30 feet wide and revealed sparse seagrasses approximately 300 to 500 feet from the shoreline. Halophila decipiens is more abundant and thick in the summer and tends to die off and at its thinnest in the winter. Neither Halophila decipiens nor Halophila johnsonii are threatened or endangered species of seagrasses. The seagrasses provide a significant environmental benefit. The benefits include nutrient recycling in the area and providing habitat for Benthic invertebrates, such as crabs, which are at the bottom of the food chain. Also, other plants grow on the seagrasses, such as algae, and the other plants provide food for other organisms. Manatees eat several seagrasses, including Halophia decipiens but it is not one of the manatees preferred seagrasses. Seagrasses can be adversely affected in two ways. One way is that prop dredging could scar the seagrasses. However, as to the proposed project, the depth of the water in the area of the seagrasses will prevent any adverse affects from prop dredging. The second way that seagrasses can, and will, be adversely affected is being shaded by the proposed dock or by boats tied-up to the dock. The density of the seagrass, pertaining to this proposed project, is thin and low and approximately one percent of actual coverage. In determining whether the proposed project is clearly in the public interest, Respondent DEP uses a balancing test which consists of taking the public interest criteria and weighing the pros and cons of the proposed project. Balancing the adverse impacts on the seagrasses and the positive effects of the public interest criteria, the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. The slips in the proposed project will increase by 12; however, the slips can only be used by sailboats. Since sailboats move slowly, the manatees in the area will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Neither navigation nor the flow of water will be adversely affected by the proposed project. Further, no harmful erosion or shoaling will be caused by the proposed project. Adequate depths are off of the end of the dock for boats to safely navigate. Shoaling is not a potential problem, and therefore, any potential shoaling which may develop will not adversely affect navigation. The proposed dock will not impact navigation into the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) because the dock will not extend into the ICW and because Respondent Jupiter Hills will provide navigational aids to guide boaters to access the Atlantic ICW. Furthermore, there is sufficient depth for navigation between the end of the proposed dock and the sandbar where the seagrasses are located. Boat traffic coming from the south will primarily originate from the residences to the south. The proposed dock will force these boaters 200 feet offshore where the natural channel is located. Additionally, the dock will keep boaters further offshore from the riparian land owners to the north, including the Petitioners. To improve the public interest aspects of the project, Respondent DEP proposed that Respondent Jupiter Hills install riprap, which Respondent Jupiter Hills agreed to do. Installation of the riprap will be 367 feet along the perimeter of the proposed dock and in a 10 by 50 foot area along the bulkhead north of the dock. Some shoaling will result but will not affect navigation. The riprap will provide substrate and shelter for marine life. The fishing or recreational values or marine productivity will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Marine productivity will increase because the sewage pump-out station will improve the water quality which will benefit the Benthic community. The proposed project will be of a permanent nature. Significant historical and archaeological resources will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. The Department of State, which is responsible for historical and archaeological resources, reviewed the Notice of Intent and has no objection to the proposed project. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project will be increased and, therefore, benefited. No cumulative impacts are associated with the proposed project. The proposed project is not in an area of pristine shoreline; the area is highly developed. Approximately 1,200 feet to the south of the proposed project is a 270 foot dock with about 50 slips. When considered with the other docks in the area, the extension of the dock in the proposed project will not significantly or measurably further violate the water quality. Respondent Jupiter Hills has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a final order issuing Permit No. 432170499 to Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioners Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. See, conclusion of law 43. Also, partially accepted in findings of fact 19-27, 34-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Rejected as being unnecessary. Also, see finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8, 9, and 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12 and 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. See, conclusion of law 46. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 and 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18 and 28. Partially accepted in findings of fact 29 and 30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. Rejected as being argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3 and 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 19-27. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejectd as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Respondent Jupiter Hills' Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in findings of fact 30 and 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. Partially accepted in findings of fact 29, 30 and 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in findings of fact 4, 5, 8, and 11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5, 8, and 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9, 14, 15, and 16. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18, 24, and 27. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18 and 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 26. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Rejected as being argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33 Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Rejected as being unnecessary, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 27 and 41. Respondent DEP's Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 and 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12 and 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in findings of fact 19 and 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. Partially accepted in findings of fact 25 and 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 35 Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. Partially accepted in finding of fact 41. NOTE: Where a proposed finding of fact has been partially accepted, the remainer has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, not supported by the evidence presented, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: J. A. Jurgens, Esquire Post Office Box 1178 Winter Park, Florida 32790-1178 Timothy C. Laubach, Esquire Sears and Manuel, P.A. 1218 Mount Vernon Street Orlando, Florida 32803 M.Tracy Biagiotti, Esquire Scott Hawkins, Esquire Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Post Office Box 3475 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 (Attorney for Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina) Lynette L. Ciardulli Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Douglas MacLaughlin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Lake Powell Improvement Corporation is a consortium of interested owners of land comprising the majority of the Lake Powell shoreline. Camp Helen Company, one of its members, owns lake property which was formerly operated as a recreational facility for associates of Avondale Mills. Camp Helen Company now holds the property for the possibility of future development. George Jeter is one of approximately 76 persons who sent a form letter to the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in opposition to the designation of Lake Powell/Phillips Inlet as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The rule-making proceeding to designate Lake Powell/Phillips Inlet an OFW was initiated with a petition filed on June 11, 1987, by the St. Andrews Bay Resource Management Association, a private citizens' organization formed in 1986 to help protect wildlife and resources in the St. Andrews Bay area. A public workshop was conducted by DER on September 6, 1990, in Panama City, Florida. Approximately 70 persons attended the workshop, including Bay County residents, Walton County residents, Lake Powell area property owners and representatives from various organizations. Craig Crockard, Vice President of Lake Powell Improvement Corporation, opposed the designation based on alleged degradation of property values and tax base, negative impact on growth and increase in road maintenance costs. Agency staff encouraged workshop participants and members of the public to submit information, including economic information, that would aid in the decision-making process. Only general and speculative information was received, with the exception of a response from the Department of Transportation that costs of future construction and expansion of the Phillips Inlet bridge, part of four-laning Highway 98, would be increased by $1.5 million as a result of the OFW regulations. DER sent a letter to Craig Crockard, received on April 2, 1991, requesting specifics as to the property owners' development plans and estimated economic impacts by April 5th. Crockard responded that the deadline was too short and that it was obvious that the decision had already been made. At no time, up to and including the hearing before the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC), did Petitioners or other opponents provide information as to specific economic impacts of the proposed designation. The proposed rule would add the following area to rule 17- 302.700(9)(i), F.A.C. specifying special waters under the OFW designation: Special Waters * * * Lake Powell, Phillips Inlet, and all tributaries to Lake Powell as bounded by the following described line: Begin at the Northwest corner of Section 26, Township 2 South, Range 18 West; thence East to the Northwest corner of Section 29, Township 2 South, Range 17 West; thence South to the Northwest corner of the SW 1/4 of Section 29, Township 2 South, Range 17 West; thence East to the West line of Section 27, Township 2 South, Range 17 West, thence South to the mean high water line of the Gulf of Mexico; thence meander Northwest along the mean high water line to the West line of Section 35, Township 2 South, Range 18 West; thence North to the point of beginning ( - - 91). * * * In making its determination to recommend OFW designation for Lake Powell to the ERC, the Department compared Lake Powell to other water bodies. Lake Powell was found to be exceptionally ecologically and recreationally significant in terms of size, water quality and recreational usage. The Department makes its determination as to whether the proposed water body is exceptional by making direct comparisons to features of other water bodies, and by relying on the professional judgements of others familiar with the particular class of water bodies. Lake Powell has been compared by professionals familiar with other water bodies in the area and in their opinion it has exceptional value as an ecosystem. The Department relied on professional judgement of this type as well as its own findings when making the determination that Lake Powell was exceptional. Lake Powell is located in Bay and Walton Counties in Northwest Florida adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. Its total surface area of 737 acres makes it the largest by far of any of a series of similar lakes in the area. Seven small streams provide fresh water to the lake; periodically Phillips Inlet, connecting the lake to the Gulf of Mexico, opens or closes. When the inlet is open, the lake becomes estuarine in nature. Most of the shoreline of Lake Powell is still undeveloped and the lake is significant in that it has experienced only minimal adverse impact from human activity. There are no permitted point source discharges to Lake Powell. It is basin-shaped, with a shallow shell, steep sandy slopes, and a flat bottom ranging from approximately 10 to 20 feet deep. Silty, high organic sediments in the water are amenable to degradation and are uniquely sensitive to pollution. Restricted flushing and the opportunity for development growth in the area add to that sensitivity. Lake Powell is a Class III waterbody. Water quality in the lake is good, and meets Class III standards; some parameters are as good as Class II standards. The low dissolved oxygen level in the lake is a result of natural conditions, is not a result of pollution, and is therefore not a violation of the Class III standard for dissolved oxygen. Lake Powell is one of the lakes in the state that is part of the water quality sampling effort known as Lake Watch. A benefit of OFW designation to this effort will be that Lake Powell, absent degradation, can serve as a control lake to compare other Lake Watch lakes throughout the State. At least 170 species of birds, (trust resources of the US Fish and Wildlife Service), have been observed and are dependent on Lake Powell. Unusual species include the piping plover (federally and state designated threatened), snowy plover (state designated threatened), least tern (state designated threatened), and bald eagle (federally designated endangered and state designated threatened). These species have a direct dependence on Lake Powell for habitat, feeding, or nesting areas. They are dependent on non-trust species such as small fishes which could be impacted by chemicals introduced to the lake. Edwin James Kepner, a biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service, has identified three new species of nematodes which so far have been uniquely found in Lake Powell. Although nematode species are among the most abundant on earth (97,000 individuals may be found in a single rotting apple), they are a highly significant part of an ecological system and must be understood and studied for any understanding of marine communities. The lake supports a diversity of animals. At least 87 species of macrobenthic invertebrates and 67 species of fin fish inhabit the lake, a diversity based on the system's intermittent connection to the Gulf and the lake's relatively pristine condition compared to other lakes. One would expect to find even more diversity, 3 to 4 times more species, if better and more accurate sampling methods were employed. Lake Powell presents a unique nursery area, since most large predator fishes do not have access to it. The lake presently supports a variety of recreational activities, including canoeing, sailing, windsurfing, water-skiing, fishing, crabbing and picnicking. This recreational use has increased during the last five years. Lake Powell is ranked 36th out of 361 lakes statewide in a 1982 study of recreational usage. In terms of potential to the public for recreational usage, Lake Powell has three public access points to the lake, and a possible fourth. Public access is gained by a Bay County public park and by way of Gulf View Drive, which is owned by Bay County and used to launch boats. There is a public dock in Walton County which is also used extensively. The fourth access is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Bay County Audubon Society. The unusual quality of recreational experience lies in the pristine nature of the lake and the fact that it is located not far from the Miracle Strip in Panama City Beach. The ERC Commissioners, who were taken on a tour of the lake, were able to contrast the two areas and found that Lake Powell had unusual recreational value. Lake Powell provides an exceptional educational opportunity, and with its many different types of habitat it is a compact, manageable educational laboratory. As compared to the St. Andrews Bay System it would be much easier to collect samples, obtain information on biotic communities and generally conduct research on the effectiveness of regulatory programs, due to the manageable size of the lake. The proposed amendment to Rule 17-302.700(9)(i), F.A.C., to designate Lake Powell as an OFW would potentially affect future Department permit applicants by requiring they provide the Department with reasonable assurances that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest and that the proposed project would not lower existing ambient water quality standards (Rule 17-4.242, F.A.C.); by requiring that direct stormwater discharges into the lake include an additional 50% treatment level (Rule 17-25.025(9), F.A.C.); and by reducing the exemption for private residential docks from 1000 square feet to 500 square feet (Rule 17-4.04(9)(c), F.A.C.). These requirements will result in increased costs to permit applicants, although the costs cannot be calculated at this time since there are no such projects firmly proposed to the Department. The primary beneficial effect of the proposed rule would be the protection of future water quality based on existing ambient water quality standards at time of OFW designation. Pursuant to Section 120.54(2), F.S., an Economic Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by the Department. Section 120.54(2)(b), F.S., requires the statement to include: * * * An estimate of the cost to the agency of the implementation of the proposed action, including the estimated amount of paperwork; An estimate of the cost or the economic benefit to all persons directly affected by the proposed action; An estimate of the impact of the proposed action on competition and the open market for employment, if applicable; A detailed statement of the data and method used in making each of the above estimates; and An analysis of the impact on small business as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. Additionally, Rule 17-302.700(4)(e) provides: An economic impact analysis consistent with Chapter 120, shall be prepared which provides a general analysis of the impact on growth and development including such factors as impacts on planned or potential industrial, agricultural, or other development or expansion. It is undisputed that the EIS properly addressed the costs of implementation to the Department. The EIS identified the kind of Department permit applicant that would potentially be affected by the rule amendment, and what kinds of developmental impacts could be expected by operation of other Department rules. The EIS did not identify any specific costs that would be attributable to the rule, as the Department was unaware of any specific development plans for the lake that would be subject to the Department rules. Existing development activities are grandfathered and would not be affected by the more stringent requirements. The Department stated in its EIS that the overall costs imposed on future development due to the proposed OFW designation would depend on both the nature of the development and its impact on the ambient water quality of the lake. Since the type and nature of future development in the area is uncertain, an estimate of the potential aggregate costs associated with the proposed OFW designation could not be made at the time the EIS was prepared. The EIS properly addressed the costs of the proposed rule to the parties, based upon the facts as known to the Department. The benefits to the public of the rule were stated to be largely environmental, as a result of protection of future ambient water quality standards in the lake. The EIS cited an economic benefit to land owners around the lake in the form of enhanced property values due to water quality protections of the OFW designation, water quality being an important variable in determining property values of waterfront property. That property values would be enhanced is based on the DER economist's study of another state's experience and experience with OFW designation in other Florida counties. The EIS properly addresses the benefits of the rule. The EIS states that there will be no significant effect on competition as a result of the proposed OFW designation; Petitioners have not presented any evidence to the contrary. The EIS adequately addresses the rule's effect on competition. The EIS states that the proposed OFW designation is not expected to create any significant adverse disproportionate impacts on small businesses, as required by Section 120.54(2)(b)5., F.S. As Petitioners have not introduced any evidence to the contrary, the EIS adequately addresses this issue. The EIS states that appropriate economic analysis techniques were employed preparing the EIS. Petitioners participated in the rulemaking process; they attended the Panama City workshop when economic information was solicited; they submitted written comments, none of which provided specific economic information; and they participated in the ERC hearing but offered no evidence to the Commission regarding economic impacts of the rule. The type of information they suggest that the Department should consider was not submitted by them, or anyone else, during the rulemaking process or this hearing. The evidence shows that the Department considered all comments submitted throughout the rulemaking process in making the recommendation of OFW designation to the ERC. The EIS properly explains the data and methodology used in its preparation, and this data and methodology was adequate to estimate the economic impacts of the rule. In January 1991, the Bay County Board of County Commissioners amended the County's comprehensive plan to provide special protection for Lake Powell. These provisions include more stringent requirements for stormwater retention and detention, an objective to maintain Lake Powell's water quality at its present level, restriction on use of household septic tanks, designation of a low-density residential zone, and prohibition of point source discharges which would lower existing water quality. (Joint Exhibit #1, Appendix D) Both parties have invoked the plan amendments for their own purpose. Petitioners argue that the plan amendments provide the same or greater protection than the proposed OFW designation and that the designation is not needed. This argument ignores the fact that at least 10% of the lake lies within Walton County, outside Bay County's jurisdiction. DER did not require Bay County to amend its plan and could not require it to maintain the new Lake Powell protections indefinitely. The OFW designation does not detract from or conflict with the local government's commendable initiative, but rather augments it. Respondent, DER, addresses the plan in its modified EIS where it discusses the contention by the Department of Transportation (DOT) that OFW designation will add $1.5 million in costs to widen a road at the Phillips Inlet bridge. DER's economist concedes that designation will result in additional costs and has discussed that in the EIS. Because he has not received back-up data from DOT he is unable to confirm that the cost will be as much as DOT asserts. He also attributes the increase to the new stormwater requirements of the Bay County comprehensive plan, and concludes the additional costs due to OFW designation might be zero. (Joint Exhibit #2, p. 7) Even if misplaced, the attribution of costs does not invalidate the EIS or the proposed designation. The EIS generally describes potential costs and provides a basis to weigh the environmental, social and economic costs against the environmental, social and economic benefits. In summary, the facts above support the ERC's finding that the waters selected for designation are of exceptional recreational or ecological significance and the benefits of designation outweigh its costs.
The Issue Whether Respondent Sarasota County Public Utilities Department (Sarasota County) has provided reasonable assurances pursuant to Rule 17- 555.530(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, that its proposed water treatment plant will comply with each applicable water quality standard contained in Part III, Chapter 17-550, Florida Administrative Code. Whether Respondent Sarasota County has provided reasonable assurance pursuant to Rule 17-555.530(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, that its proposed water treatment plant meets adequate engineering design complying with the applicable engineering principles established in Rules 17-555.310 through 17-555.160, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: STIPULATED FACTS Sarasota County Utilities Department is a department established by Sarasota County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida and operates a public utility department which is charged with meeting, among other things, potable water needs of the residents of Sarasota County. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, HRS was responsible for receiving applications and issuing permits for the construction of water treatment plants and the accompanying well field. Petitioner, Charles P. Page, is a resident of Sarasota County and resides at 259 Glen Oak Road, Venice, Florida. Sarasota County filed an Application for a Water Treatment Plant Construction Permit with HRS seeking to construct a well water collection system and a 12 mgd - electrodialysis treatment plant having an auxiliary power system to provide power for the well field and water treatment plant. Sarasota County has previously obtained a water use permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) #208836.00, restricting Sarasota County to feed water for the water treatment plant to 7,303,000.00 gallons average daily withdrawal and 9,625,000.00 gallons peak monthly withdrawal. Sarasota County has received permits for the eleven (11) production wells from HRS. It was the duty of HRS to review the plans and specifications and all supporting documentation to assure that they address and meet every requirement listed in Rule 17-555, Florida Administrative Code, for the issuance of a construction permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered issuing permit No. PATS No. 204307 & WC No. 1591-91-036 to Respondent Sarasota County, as set forth in the Notice of Intent To Issue dated February 20, 1992, provided that the grant of the subject permit shall include the general and specific conditions in the Intent To Issue with the further recommendation that the third required specific condition found on page 1 of the Specific Conditions be modified as follows: Construction of the electrodialysis reversal water treatment plant covered by this permit shall not begin prior to the issuance of a permit as required by State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for the EDR concentrate discharge facility. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of October, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2002 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statute, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(1); 22(47); 23(48); 24(19-20) 29(49); 38(5); 39(19); 42-43(19,20); and 51(49). 2. Proposed finding(s) of fact 2,3,5,6,7,11,14,15,16,18, 19,20,21,25,26,30,31,35,40,45,46,47,49,and 50 are neither material nor relevant to this proceeding or the conclusion reached in the Recommended Order. Proposed finding(s) of fact 4,8,9,10,12,13,17,27,28,and 41 are rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Proposed finding(s) of fact 32,33,34,36,37, and 48 are unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 44 is rejected as not being the "opinion" of the Hearing Officer. The transcript will show that the Hearing Officer was only restating the testimony of Judith Richtar. But see Finding of Fact 49. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Sarasota County The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified if the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1 - 20(1) - 20, respectively); 21(27); 22 - 26(22 - 26, respectively); 27(28); 28(29); 29(31); and 30 - 44(32 - 46, respectively). For proposed findings of fact 45 through 65 see Findings of Fact 51 and 52. Proposed findings of fact 66 through 68 are unnecessary. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation The Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation adopted Sarasota County's proposed findings of fact 1 through 44, 63 and 64, and 66 with modification. Therefore, the rulings on the Department's proposed findings of fact would be the same as the previous rulings on Sarasota County's proposed findings of fact adopted by the Department. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Wheeler Pitzer, Esquire 546 47th Street Sarasota, FL 34234 William A. Dooley, Esquire Nelson, Hesse, Cyril, et al. 2070 Ringling Blvd. Sarasota, FL 33237 Joseph W. Landers, Esquire Landers & Parsons 310 W. College Avenue, 3rd Floor Tallahassee, FL 32301 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is currently engaged in widening State Road (SR) 5, the Overseas Highway, to four lanes on Marathon Key. To handle surface water runoff from a portion of the project, DOT received approval from the South Florida Water Management District for a surface water management system which included two retention ponds (west pond and east pond) to be located on Marathon Airport.1 On May 23, 1985, DOT filed an application with DER for authorization to construct four Class V, group five stormwater drainage wells within the retention ponds on Marathon Airport. DOT proposed to locate three wells within the west pond and one well within the east pond to comply with a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) request that water levels be minimized to deter the attraction of birds which could present a hazard to aircraft navigation. By letter dated August 12, 1985, DER forwarded to DOT permit number US44-104852, dated July 26, 1985, for construction of the subject wells. Upon its receipt of the permit, DOT let the contracts for the widening of SR 5; however, neither DER nor DOT published notice of DER's intent to issue the requested permit. On November 29, 1985, a few days after he received actual notice that the permit had been issued, Robert C. Ernst filed a request for hearing with DER contesting its issuance. Mr. Ernst owns a home which lies atop the groundwaters to be impacted by the subject permit and which abuts Dodge Lake, a Class III surface water body; Mr. Ernst uses the waters of Dodge Lake for swimming, fishing, and other recreational pursuits. On December 20, 1985, Mr. Ernst and others, on behalf of Neighbors for Clean Canals (NCC), filed a request for hearing challenging the same permit. NCC was alleged to be a neighborhood association, formed December 17, 1985, to represent the interests of property owners affected by the proposed project; however, no such proof was offered at hearing. The retention ponds proposed by DOT are designed to accommodate the first inch of stormwater runoff.2 Significantly, the first 1/2" of runoff from a highway system contains the bulk of pollutants. By retaining this runoff, and permitting it to evaporate or percolate through the soils underlying the retention ponds, any adverse impact to the ground waters is minimized. DOT's proposal to install four injection wells within the ponds will deprive them of their retention capability. These wells will, within a 12-20 hour period, inject the first 1/2" of runoff (over 1 million gallons) directly into the groundwaters. Therefore, evidence of the nature of the pollutants, the quality of the receiving waters, and the geologic and hydrologic qualities of the area are significant. Highway runoff contains high concentrations of pollutants ranging from toxic mutagenic and carcinogenic substances such as heavy metals (primarily lead and zinc), pesticides, and herbicides to oxygen consuming materials and solids which cause damages such as siltation and eutrophication. These pollutants, including oils, greases, and copper, can have significant adverse effects upon the quality of the receiving waters and the life forms it supports. Underlying the proposed retention ponds is an aquaclude which extends from the surface to a depth of 30-40 feet. This aquaclude, a hard layer formation with very poor percolation qualities, will preclude any waters injected below it from returning to the surface and will direct their flow laterally. Since the maximum depths of Dodge Lake and the 100th Street Canal are 13' and 21' respectively, injection of the stormwater runoff at 50', well below the existing aquaclude, provides reasonable assurances that these water bodies will not be adversely impacted by the proposed project. However, the impacts to the groundwater and other water bodies is not so clear. Other than sampling the groundwater to establish its character as Class III groundwater,3 DOT and DER did not perform any water quality analysis. Accordingly, the existing quality of the receiving groundwaters was not shown. Further, there was no showing of the hydrologic characteristics of the area. Therefore, there was no evidence of the mixing or dilution of the contaminants which would be injected, or of their ultimate point(s) of discharge into the surface waters surrounding Marathon Key.4 DOT and DER assert that "specific conditions" #4 and #5 attached to the subject permit will provide assurances that injection of the stormwater runoff will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. Those conditions provide: The following parameters shall be sampled at Well W-2 Florida Department of Transportation drawing sheet 3 of 5 and Well E-1 Florida Department of Transportation drawing sheet 4 of 5 and reported quarterly to the Department ninety (90) days following certification and placement of this facility in operation. The parameters to be sampled are: Napthalene, Lead and volatile organic compounds including: Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, Carbon Tetrachloride, Vinyl Chloride, 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane, 1,2- Dichloroethane, Benzene, and Ethylene Dibromide. The discharge authorized by this permit shall be consistent at all times with the water quality standards set forth in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Should conditions in the receiving stream warrant, the Permittee may be required by the Department to upgrade, reduce, or cease the discharge approved by this permit and adopt an alternative method of disposal within a reasonable period of time. Under specific condition #4, the ground waters will be sampled at one injection well within each of the retention ponds. Without evidence of the mixing and flow characteristics of the groundwater, the reliability of the proposed monitoring program is questionable since it was not shown where, transitionally or ultimately, the pollutants would settle. Absent such proof, there is no evidence that the wells are sited so as to detect any water quality violations. Therefore, specific conditions #4 and #5 do not provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings. Petitioners, Robert C. Ernst and Neighbors for Clean Canals (NCC), pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, contest the decision of DER to issue a permit to DOT to construct four Class v, group five-stormwater drainage wells. Pertinent to this proceeding, Section 120.57 provides: The provisions of this section apply in all proceedings in which the substantial interests of a party are determined by an agency. When standing is resisted, as it is in this proceeding, the burden is on the protestant to prove standing. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, v. Alice P., 367 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, does not attempt to define substantially affected persons. The Florida courts have, however, adopted the federal "injury-in-fact" and "zone of interest" tests governing standing. Montgomery v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 468 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA) 1985). Under this two-prong test, a person is substantially affected if he can demonstrate that he will suffer "injury-in- fact" which is of sufficient immediacy to entitle him to relief and the injury is of a type or nature which the proceeding is designed to protect (the "zone of interest"). Where, as here, an association institutes a proceeding on behalf of its members, it can be accorded standing only when it demonstrates that a substantial number of its members, although not necessarily a majority, are substantially affected by the proposed agency action, the nature of the injury is of a type which the proceeding is designed to protect: and, the relief requested is of a type appropriate for an association to receive on behalf of its members. See Florida Home Builders Assoc. v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982). Mr. Ernst has demonstrated his standing to maintain this action. His home lies atop the groundwaters to be impacted by the proposed project and he uses the waters proximate to the proposed wells which could be adversely impacted if the wells were not properly constructed or sited. NCC failed, however, to demonstrate its standing since it failed to offer any evidence that a substantial number of its members could be substantially affected by the proposed project or that the interest sought to be protected was within the association's general scope of interest and purpose. Although Mr. Ernst has demonstrated standing, DOT asserts that his petition was untimely since it was filed more than three months after DOT received its permit. DOT's assertion is without merit. It is established law that persons whose substantial interests may be affected by proposed agency action must be accorded a point of entry into the proceedings. See Capeletti Brothers, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 362 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Until accorded notice, actual or constructive, such person has not been offered a point of entry. Rule 17-103.150, F.A.C., provides a method to assure constructive notice is given to all substantially affected persons, and to limit the time within which a request for an administrative hearing may be filed. That rule provides that each person who filed an application for a DER permit may publish a notice of proposed agency action in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the activity will be located. If notice is published, a person whose substantial interests might be affected by the proposed action must file his request for hearing within 14 days of the date of publication. Significantly, the rule also provides: Since persons whose substantial interests are affected by a Department decision on a permit application may petition for an administrative proceeding within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notice and since, unless notice is given or published as prescribed in this rule, receipt of notice can occur at any time, the applicant or persons benefiting from the Department's action cannot justifiably rely on the finality of the Department's decision without the notice having been duly given or published. DOT elected not to publish notice under the provisions of Rule 17-103.150, F.A.C., and cannot justifiably rely on the finality of DER's decision. Mr. Ernst's petition for hearing, filed within a few days of his receipt of notice, was timely. 5 DER has jurisdiction over the permitting of the proposed four Class V, group five-stormwater drainage wells pursuant to Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-4 and 17-28, F.A.C. A party seeking approval to inject stormwater drainage into Class G-III water must provide reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards set forth in Rule 17-3.402(1), F.A.C. That rule provides: All ground water shall at all places and at all times be free from domestic, industrial, agricultural, or other man-induced non- thermal components of discharges in concentrations which, alone or in combination with other substances, or components of discharges (whether thermal or non-thermal): Are harmful to plants, animals, or organisms that are native to the soil and responsible for treatment or stabilization of the discharge relied upon by Department permits or Are carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, or toxic to human beings, unless specific criteria are established for such components in Rule 17-3.404: or Are acutely toxic to indigenous species of significance to the aquatic community within surface waters affected by the ground water at the point of contact with surface waters or Pose a serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare; or Create or constitute a nuisance or Impair the reasonable and beneficial use of adjacent waters. DOT has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed stormwater discharge will not cause or contribute to a violation of the groundwater standards set forth in Rule 17-3.402(1), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order: Dismissing the petition for hearing filed by Neighbors for Clean Canals, and Denying the issuance of permit number US44-104852 to the Department of Transportation. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1986.
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the applicants have offered reasonable assurance that their proposed surface water management system for the Palm Beach Park of Commerce would operate within the rules of SFWMD set out at Section 40E-4.301, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioners specifically contend that the project as proposed would cause flooding on lands adjacent to the project, would have adverse impacts on surface and ground waters, and otherwise is inconsistent with SFWMD criteria. Applicants and SFWMD contend that the project meets applicable standards.
Findings Of Fact The applicants propose to develop an industrial park to be known as the Palm Beach Park of Commerce (PBPC) in western Palm Beach County, Florida. The proposed site is located on State Road 710 and State Road 711. The site is approximately 1,248 acres in size. PBPC proposes to accommodate a variety of commercial and industrial uses. Applicants are seeking conceptual approval of a proposed surface water management system. They are not at this time seeking permits from SFWMD which would allow construction of the overall system. The proposed system does not include plans for surface water management on sites within PBPC, but rather relates solely to an overall system. Petitioner is an association of homeowners within a single family residential development known as Caloosa. The development is approximately 1,400 acres in size and consists of single family residences on approximately five-acre lots. The Caloosa development is located to the southeast of the proposed PBPC. Surface and ground water flows from the PBPC site toward the Caloosa development. Residents of Caloosa depend on individual wells for their drinking water. The site of the proposed PBPC is primarily a flat, broad plain with wetland pockets and pine-palmetto flatwoods. Approximately 720 acres of the site is dominated by pine flatwoods. A bit more than 300 acres of the site is in agricultural land, either presently or recently under cultivation. Between 160 and 170 acres of the site are viable, productive wetlands. The wetland areas are inundated with water during a sufficient portion of the year to support predominantly wetland vegetation. The land slopes generally from the northwest to the southeast. The proposed PBPC site is located within the Loxahatchee basin. Surface water from the site presently drains toward the southeast into the Caloosa canal. The Caloosa canal flows through the Caloosa development and ultimately discharges into the C-18 canal. The C-18 canal drains into the Loxahatchee River. Water from areas to the north and west of the proposed site presently drains onto the site and into the Caloosa canal. The proposed drainage system would carry water to the discharge point at the southeast corner of the site through a perimeter canal system. Water from the off-site locations would drain into the perimeter canal to the discharge point. On-site surface water would drain toward wetland pockets into the perimeter canal system or directly into the canal system. The proposed drainage system would preserve 135 acres of the wetlands presently located on the project site. These wetland areas have been incorporated into the surface water management system. Approximately 33 acres of wetlands would be filled. The wetland areas serve a significant function to preserve water quality, and to mitigate the loss of these wetlands, applicants propose to create a wetland area along the northern portion of the perimeter canal. This constructed wetland area would serve approximately the same water quality function as the wetland area that would be filled. The proposed surface water drainage system is designed so as to retain the first one inch of runoff from any storm event through a system of swales. Thus, surface water runoff would cross grassy areas and percolate through the swale systems before entering the perimeter canal system. Such a system serves to filter most of the pollutants that would be carried into the surface water system as the result of a storm event. The Caloosa canal is presently not able to accommodate flows that would result from the proposed PBPC surface water management system without flooding up to a storm event of three-day duration and 25-year return frequency. This would be a storm of such magnitude that it is likely to occur only once each 25 years over a three-day period. There are two existing bridges over the Caloosa canal which narrow the canal to only 16 feet in width. The narrow openings under the bridges presently cause flooding and erosion in the canal, which is generally 65 feet in width. At the discharge point of the Caloosa canal into the C-18 canal, there is a 65-foot wide steel sheet pile weir, downstream of the weir there are three 72-inch diameter pipes which discharge directly into the C- 18 canal. These pipes are not adequate to accommodate flows that would be anticipated from the proposed PBPC as a result of a storm event of three-day duration and 25-year return frequency. There has been erosion in the Caloosa canal partially as a result of its sandy banks and partially because of the constrictions resulting from the narrow bridges. In order to assure that the Caloosa canal could accept discharges anticipated from the PBPC surface water management system, the bridges would need to be expanded to 60 feet in width, an additional 72-inch diameter pipe would need to be installed at the discharge point into the C-18 canal, and maintenance work would need to be performed on the Caloosa canal so that it could be restored to its uneroded condition. If these improvements are made in the Caloosa canal system, then the proposed surface water management system for PBPC is not likely to result in any downstream flooding except in the event of a storm event in excess of three-day duration and 25-year return frequency. Design features of the proposed drainage system including preservation of wetland areas, creation of new wetland areas, and retention of the first one inch of storm water runoff prior to discharge into surface waters are known as "best management practices." SFWMD has a policy of accepting the implementation of best management practices as providing reasonable assurance that a surface water system will not result in adverse water quality impacts. It does not appear that construction of the proposed surface water management system would of itself have any negative impact upon the quality of surface or ground waters. There is potential for negative water quality impacts that would result from activities of individual, commercial or industrial tenants of PBPC. The applicants have agreed to prohibit certain uses within the proposed industrial park as a condition for receiving conceptual approval and to impose deed restrictions or restrictive covenants prohibiting specific uses on all property within PBPC. Uses which applicants have agreed to exclude are: breweries, fertilizer manufacturers, coal and petroleum derivation manufacturers, exterminator manufacturing and warehousing, and all chemical manufacturing including insecticides, herbicides and pesticides. Despite these restrictions, there are many potential commercial and industrial activities that could occur within PBPC that would involve the use of toxic substances which could have potentially devastating water quality impacts. The application for conceptual approval contemplates that each individual tenant within PBPC will need to obtain a permit from SFWMD for a surface water management system for their individual portion of PBPC. Each tenant would be required to establish a system which itself would retain the first one inch of runoff from any storm event. It is essential that individual tenants whose activities include the use of toxic substances be required to implement systems to assure that toxic wastes are adequately treated and disposed of properly and that systems are established to prevent accidents, and in the event of accidents, to deal with them on an emergency basis. The most potentially dangerous impact in water quality terms that might result from industrial uses is where toxic substances that are water soluble are used on the site. Such substances would not be filtered through percolation and could enter surface and ground waters. As a condition of approval, it is appropriate that all construction or operating permits be conditioned upon the implementation of control systems and emergency systems that reasonably assure that no individual user within PBPC would engage in activities that would be likely to result in violations of water quality standards. It does not appear that the proposed surface water management system for PBPC would cause adverse environmental impacts. Most of the on-site wetlands will be retained, and those that will be filled are lower quality wetlands that will be replaced by the creation of wetlands along the perimeter canal system. Construction activities and activities on site after development will undoubtedly change wildlife habitat. The area of the proposed site is not, however, a unique wildlife habitat; and it does not appear that any species would be threatened with significant habitat reduction. The proposed water management has been designed so that it can be effectively operated and maintained. The Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District has agreed to maintain the surface water management system. The district is a public entity that has personnel and expertise available to operate the system. It does not appear that the proposed surface water management system would have any adverse impact upon public health or safety. It is possible that individual tenants depending upon the nature of their activities, could offer potential health and safety hazards. It is appropriate that such hazards be taken into account in the approval of surface water management systems for individual sites within the proposed park. It appears that the proposed surface water management system is virtually as good a system as could be designed to accommodate an industrial park. The proposed use of the land as an industrial park is compatible with comprehensive plans and zoning regulations of Palm Beach County.
